Keith Meeks Yes, but he's since passed and his word is not mainstream. I guess what I meant to say is if he was alive today he would be demonized so much by the left they would probably compare him to Hitler.
Props to the student who asked the question. He formulated his question well and listened carefully. This is something not as self-explicatory anymore.
give him no props, the reason he shuts his stupid mouth is that back then they didn't have the number, now they got the number so they know they can easily overwhelm the conference
Agreed. Milton Friedman today would have been shouted down inside the lecture hall while mayhem erupts outside the lecture hall, followed by online punctuated dislikes, slanderous comments, social cancellation even professional ruination. Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice. Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
"Have you ever been on welfare... or poor?" Freedman: "Of course. More so that most of the people in this room. How many of you, have worked a 12 hour day and got paid 78 cents?... Is there one of you who is going to say, 'I don't want a doctor to treat me for cancer, unless he himself has had cancer?' " ... ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS! I wish this man was still around.
+itchyisvegeta Lmao good burn but for me this was the least engaging part of the video because it had nothing to do with his otherwise excellently formulated argument
Even though I think Milton misses a lot here, I realize people give him a lot of credit because he comes off feeing like an authority. But most of the people commenting who do agree with his points, mostly people who identify as conservative or libertarian, won’t focus on the main issue with our current systems status. Money and business in places it shouldn’t be. Corporate lobbying, insider trading, and poorly allocated government subsidies. Friedman would have recognized any of these as inefficiencies, but the politicians keep those topics out of public view. Those topics could literally beget a big change in our system, but most people would rather live in their little two party reality TV dramas.
Unlike you, who is intellectually above the rest of us and, by God, ought to be listened to, and furthermore, given power and prestige and all the things that go with that. Phfffft!
@frankhalbiger6007, I do stand beside you in seeing the apathy of "most people would rather live in their little two party reality TV dramas." I am formulating some ideas on rejecting partisan politics, and helping people to see how our lives are so much more complex and interesting than 'us against them'. By my formulation, partisan politics and the overarching Identity Politics needs to be fully rejected if we are to find progress and greater community with each other. Partisan politics has us taking walking steps while standing on a pogo stick. Neither side wants to other to claim a win or to advance, because it makes the other feel as if they have lost or been set back. So, we only seem to pivot on the pogo stick. We instead need representatives who stand on principles in serving their districts, and who honestly work for policy wins for their districts, not working for empowering their parties. I do think every word of Friedman is correct in this one short video. What is not raised there is the excessive income claimed by individuals who did not create the value needed to justify their levels of income. They instead have been exploiting other people who did create the value (but were not paid a consummate income), or they have been exploiting community systems for their excessively greedy bypassing of creating true value for the economy. Then too often, those resources, those ill-gotten income dollars are squandered away in tax havens where the economy cannot re-circulate that economic "life blood". Be on the watch for #RegulateGreed, and #Aim4Equity and #AntiPartisan Candidates.
@@artofthepossible7329 We may never know, compare how we were raised and then compare how the people of today were raised, that may help. I liked how I was raised by my parents, we were a family and not put in the care of other people, both of my parents worked so I would say they did a good job. Those of today are spoiled brats, having everything handed to them, not having to work for something. I am far from a perfect person but I take responsibility for my actions and want to learn.
+Matthew Roach Friedman lost. Greenspan, Friedman's acolyte, renounced friedmans and his own world view after the recession. He was wrong. I agree with both on different subjects. They both agree competition is key. Here is a quote from greenspan at age 82. The first is Rep. Henry A. Waxman asking Greenspan a Question: "You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others," said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. "Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?" Mr. Greenspan conceded: "Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact."
+Bush The Destroyer of Evil I really don't think it is fair to lump Friedman in with Greenspan. I know Friedman still believed in certain regulations for the economy which I oppose, but I really don't think Friedman would have been for the distortions taking place in the subprime market under Greenspan. I invite you to cite some sources or quotes. I am open to being proven wrong on this one since I have not look at exactly what Friedman believed on the subject.
+Bush The Destroyer of Evil Subprime crisis was due to government policy not free markets: "Initially, the 1992 *legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan purchases be related to affordable housing*. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements, and *eventually (under the Bush Administration) a 56 percent minimum was established*. To fulfill the requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac established programs to purchase $5 trillion in affordable housing loans, and *encouraged lenders to relax underwriting standards to produce those loans.*"
+Bush The Destroyer of Evil Your absolutely wrong about Friedman. Friendman said in an interview that he would like to abolish the fed (which caused the housing market crash and the 08 finacial crises). If Friedman was in control of our government, non of the things that Greenspan is apologizing for would have happened.
+Unknown Person partially true. Friedman's idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve was really good, but he never seemed to address the imbalanced conditions of the greed of wealth and power of the rich over the poor and the exploitation of labor by the rich and powerful.
Wow, no one walked out, no one held up a 'check your privilege' sign, no one started a cancerous chant, no one barricaded the door to stop attendees from getting in, no one protested a capitalist speaker voicing his opinion and perhaps most ironically, the boy asking the question wasn't a complete halfwit. What a time to have been alive.
So? That's what he's saying. That though people may have objected, they didn't behave as they do now. What? Did you think you enlightened all of us or something with your retort?
Milton Friedman’s mother: Your room is a mess! You need to clean this up. Milton Friedman: First of all, rooms are wonderful; nothing has ever protected more people from sleeping out in the cold than rooms. Many kids in the Soviet Union don’t even have rooms, let alone in India and China. Now I’m not saying my room is perfect-it’s not. It probably should be cleaner. But you look at my room compared to any of my friends’ rooms, and mine is far better. Furthermore - Milton Friedman’s mother: Oh, good night!
Friedman's argument presupposes blacks want to work, which I haven't found to be the case. Crime (drugs, robberies, shoplifting, car theft, etc) is both more profitable and less effort. We have to reduce that incentive, which means cracking down on crime HARD (aggressive policing, tougher sentences, tougher prison conditions, etc). Nobody, not even Trump, is discussing that. We also need welfare reform to separate the needy from the abusers.
The word "conservative" is completely muddied- what comes to your mind when you use that word? Modern "conservatives" in the US still support federal income tax, often only slightly lower than liberals. Libertarians support 0% income tax.
Students wouldn't have to run to their safe spaces: If Milton Friedman was available for lectures today, most colleges would prohibit him from speaking.
Students were 20x more intelligent in those days. He can actually formulate a legitimate question that makes sense and isn't filled with crazy emotions.
@@MusicalMemeology Agreed. This whole education system that hands over free trophy without merit is toxic as shit. Now everyone thinks he/she deserves something just by being alive....
Probably helps he wasn't worried about insane student loan payments, unaffordable Healthcare, zero job opportunities when he left college and a rent bill a five times more than his parents would have paid for their starter apartment. In short, the times they have changed quite a bit.
@@frankxu4795 I think kids realize that receiving non-merit trophies is bad, and that it creates a want in them to attain a trophy for real merit. The issue is that many of those people end up not wanting to put forth the effort that warrants that merit.
MustafaHolyWarrior This will change. Society will tire of these extremists mouthing off. Reasonable people like reasonable people; the nutters you mention are on the fringe, and will be pushed out. Give it time....
Milton is incorrect stating that "government does not have the ability to respond (response-ability)." There are some things easier done by people in government and some things done easier by people one on one. Roads are a great example of this, as is housing policy, which influences how many people are poor.
I guess you don't see what you don't want to see and don't hear what you don't want to hear. Government absolutely does not have the ability to end or even minimize poverty except by staying out of the way.
@@m444ss People who believe they know the right answer think like this. For the rest of us we actually have to talk to people and respect their opinions.
He basically just answered like a politician and answered the question he wished he'd been asked while avoiding the question he was actually asked - ie, seeing as structural disadvantage and poverty traps exist as a form of market failure (a failure of the free enterprise and free markets he then spends his whole speech espousing), should we not use government as a form of collective organising to address those market failures. He basically starts his response with the idea that Thatcher is known and rightly ridiculed for - that society doesn't exist, that the individual is the be all and end all...which is as nonsense in theory as it is in practice. The fact we have and need governments in the first place disproves it. For better or worse, we do live in a society, one where we organise and collectively create and manage common infrastructure, resources and institutions. Self-reliance is a myth in an atomised capitalist society, particularly one in which people are either advantaged or disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth. Neoliberal idealogues love Friedman's ideas but time has shown that for markets to function optimally, they do require intervention that addresses market failures. Friedman's ideas are so popular and widespread because they served (and still serve) the agenda of people who benefit the most from an unregulated capitalist system - namely, the people who already have capital. The right wing and business lobby invested heavily in think tanks and propaganda that ultimately captured much of modern Western policymaking and ushered in the age of neoliberalism with all its empty promises...and has seen the gap between the rich and the poor become ever more a chasm
@@cm88388This has been addressed elsewhere. Where market fails, for the same reason and even more so, government also fails. At least in freedom, you can fund what you say you believe in, and/or persuade others to your cause, not just virtue signal while straining the social fabric by imposing what you believe is virtuous upon the unwilling. Government intervention brings deadweight loss. The most illustrative form of this is the TSA. Where the government is justified in its function of protecting citizens from dangers outside and inside of the country, yet they fail miserably, cause more issues than they solve, and cost way too much. All of that for a security theater. The source of corruption is the person who tries to live off of others, no matter how well his intentions may be, and intentions are rarely truly well. Upon reflection, most of it is self-interest, and that's not wrong in and of itself, as long as no one is coerced into it. If something is truly a problem, then charity or the market will provide. Wanting something but not being willing and able to pay for it is not demand in the economic sense. It's just a wish.
Neoliberalism was tested in Latin America in the way that Freidman and his school preached, and the result was poverty, corruption, and economic backwardness, massive debts that continue to hold back the development of the area. Enron and speculative bubbles are the result of a lack of regulations. Freidman and his recipes are like communism, they are recipes that say they will solve all human problems and only produce the opposite results. The only thing governments have learned from the chicago boys is that they must go into debt to bail out companies supposedly to avoid the Great Depression again and that has only created more debt and more poverty.
this asshole's economic policies were successfully applied in Chile and all that did was murder a lot of people and make the nation far more dependent on foreign capital than it already was. fuck milton friedman and everybody who loves him.
As much as I disagreed with it, I really admired and respected that student's question. I think it is a reasonably fair question to ask, and like always Friedman articulated a brilliant response that everyone can understand. I wish he was here today to debate Krugman and Obama... Haha
Friedman's argument presupposes blacks want to work, which I haven't found to be the case. Crime (drugs, robberies, shoplifting, car theft, etc) is both more profitable and less effort. We have to reduce that incentive, which means cracking down on crime HARD (aggressive policing, tougher sentences, tougher prison conditions, etc). Nobody, not even Trump, is discussing that. We also need welfare reform to separate the needy from the abusers.
All blacks in America don't want to work? I'm black and I live in a low-income area. Even the drug dealers I know want to work; just not for minimum wage because it can't pay any bills or provide a living. They have felonies a lot of the times which makes them unmarketable on the job market. To make a sweeping statement such as "All black people in America do not desire to work" is pretty irrational and false, considering the statistics are showing that we blacks are more productive in college every year and are making advances in the workforce every year. The percentage of "blacks" who rather do crime is only a small segment of the population. Really amazing to hear you say that literally every single black in America doesn't have the desire to work a job because they rather steal cars. Car theft numbers don't even equate to the population of Blacks, neither does shoplifting numbers and robberies. & How is car theft more profitable than working when there's no way to even resale a stolen vehicle? Lol. and there are less successful drug dealers than successful. If every black person in America were a drug dealer because it's more profitable than a job, how would the numbers work? Friedman also mentioned "black teenagers"...Jesus, do you hate black people just because of the actions of a few that you've seen on TV or heard in a rap song...or seen in your city? That's ridiculously hateful.
Or, instead of putting more people into prison for victimless crimes, we end the drug war and stop wrecking poor communities. But then I suppose whoever is REALLY bringing the drugs into the United States (wink wink, we all know who that is) would actually have competition.
@@theQuestion626 yet, everything he said is correct. it's ironic that anyone would fault him for that. actually, he was precise. rather than speaking in generalities, he precisely listed three factors that contribute to poverty. so even more ironic that anyone would claim he wasn't precise.
@@kurtshaw229 no i didnt, he came out with his favourite fallacious, the extraordinary development of USA. to me he just could realized that his model cant eliminate poverty.
@@rubensantosfrasco5687 Well i dont think you can eliminate poverty at all, but we dont know if his model can eliminate poverty unless we try it or not.
It is amazing how many people think prosperity is free. They don't believe we have to achieve prosperity; they think it is free just by wishing for it and voting. But prosperity has to be created through work. Not just "jobs" but also teaching our children what a good work ethic is, decreasing Government dependence, accepting responsibility for your actions, and realize our blessings that we do have, not just glorify the things that we don't have.
Do you not see an aristocracy in place? Social mobility is at an all time low and only getting lower. I’m prosperous however I don’t want a social of increased polarisation even if my child are the wealthy. I love the concept of Ubuntu, how can you be truly happy in America with such levels of poverty all around you?
@@magneticman245 No it doesn't, because their only goal will be to compete for profit. Look at SpaceX and Blue Origin, are they cooperating, or are they competing? Compare that to the large-scale cooperation that took place during the Apollo program, and the rapid pace at which that program progressed, relative to current space programs.
He got a Nobel prize in economics which is basically a meaningless award also his economic theories contributed to incredible socioeconomic disparity that spans the globe. So you’re basically learning lessons about a charlatan and a dogmatist whom posited on theories that failed spectacularly.
@@theQuestion626 I respectfully disagree with the comment. Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize in Economics recognized his significant contributions to the field. While his theories are subject to debate, labeling him as a charlatan or dogmatist oversimplifies his complex ideas. Economic outcomes are influenced by various factors, and attributing global socioeconomic disparity solely to Friedman's theories is an oversimplification.
@@thedeno6350 A bit of an oversimplification, however we have to not be so dismissive of the elements of his contributions to the economic failures that have played the United States since he was held up as some kind of economic mastermind. Literally his entire theories were applied to the Chilean economy durian the Pinochet made regime, and it tanked the country in no time at all. America had a growing middle class that was the envy of the world an actual wages that grew with productivity, but once Friedmans theories along with Laffers you saw the stagnation of wages, outsourcing a good jobs, the crushing of unions, increase of work or exploitation. So with all due respect? So much can actually be blamed on the failures of Milton Friedman as well as those who follow along with his ideology. His noble prize in economics, that itself is ultimately meaningless given that history has proven that this man really didn’t base his theories on anything that resembled logic. Just listen to the man speak. He doesn’t use scientific modeling, he doesn’t use impartial pragmatic thinking, virtually everything he says it’s just line for line libertarian dogma. Economics is a complex field, following this man’s work and his personal philosophies was a huge disservice to the United States. We can literally blame America’s increase in poverty and wage disparity and wealth disparity because of the neoliberal policies that he and men like him push for and got.
The issue is that the standard of living for most Americans is dropping. What was once affordable with 1 income needs 2 incomes now. What was once a valuable college degree is now the bare minimum. What was once worth a whole month of groceries now only lasts a week or two. All while American wages remain stagnant (so real-wages & standard of living is declining for the American people).
That was a terrible analogy. The doctor is treating the cancer. He understands the disease. He knows that this medication or that surgery will work. This economist isn’t treating anything. He’s theorising about the societal benefits of paying working poor even less - thinks his pithy line about having previously had a poorly paid job is some sort of bona fide 🤦🏻♂️
@@ManofMunster So rich man cant tell something about poor ? He might understands money and knows how it works or way to generate money. After all doctor is a theorizing about the cancer and doing the treatments based on the that.
@@ManofMunster a minimum wage does not improve a person's earnings - it simply limits the minimum amount a company can pay you. if your productivity is not sufficient to justify a minimum wage you will be permanently unemployed. there is a reason why programmers/financial analyst/engineers do not need a minimum wage. your productivity determines your wage and companies will not pay you more (or hire you) than what your productivity is worth.
Milton's arguments are so good that today most of the world's poor people can actually see these videos on their own smartphone. Something that was incomprehensible back when they were first recorded.
How are his arguments even remotely relevant given that his theories actually contributed to the exacerbation of poverty? But I agree with you. It’s good that poor people can see this smug little shit basically justify theories that contribute to their poverty and their subjugation.
And where do those smartphone component get made? In China because the free market incentivizes immediate returns and authoritarian governments can exploit that to move manufacturing to their country and effectively shift the global balance of power. Much of what Friedman said was a product of his time and was vindicated by the post ww2 period, but the time since then, the past 40 years or so, have shown that Keynesian economics are so powerful that no free enterprise economy can compete in a global setting with other economies propped up by the governments of their countries. On manufacturing, heavy handed governments like China excel, on quality of life for the citizenry, social welfare countries like in Scandinavia excel. Countries like the USA excel only in making the ownership class wealthy at the expense of all other concerns.
tell the people who's homes were destroyed to let companies mine lithium and the lives and health of those working in lithium mines destroyed with no gurantee of economic stability or job security while corporation's executives have income and bonuses, a fraction of which would guarantee the health and economic stability of their employees.
These were actually pretty poor arguments if i gave him the benefit of the doubt that he really believes them. But at worst and more likely, they were complete BS. So much so that he even stammers a little because hes forcing lies. Ive watched a lot of Miltons speeches when i was younger and considered myself a libertarian, and never stammers or stutters like that when hes making a good point or is saying something he believes to be true.
The student asked an intelligent and well-articulated question, and Friedman responded with an equally intelligent, well-articulated, and better informed answer. But the world ignored his core concept -- that government is the problem in subsidizing a welfare system that makes poverty self-perpetuating. We have a duty to the poor: to help them learn new skills and become productive. The poor have a duty too: to learn such skills, become productive, and live responsibly. The present welfare system is a give-away program with no reciprocal obligation to society, which discourages the very values needed to break out of poverty and begin building wealth. Friedman is now gone, but the same welfare system keeps chugging unhappily along, perpetuating financial slavery. Why? Because a perpetual welfare system assures a certain political group of elites guaranteed votes. To those elites, the dependency of others is a wonderful thing.
I agree with your first part but disagree with the second. It's not a conspiracy. These people really do think they are helping. They really do think what they are doing is necessary. I don't think we will ever solve any societal problems so long as each side thinks that the other one is lying. In so many of our big debates, each side tells the truth but is so sure that the other side is lying. The abortion debate is the best example of this. I think it's very counterproductive.
Out of curiosity, what would be your explanation as to why the '50s saw equal or less unemployment with almost no government welfare programs yet today there is around 4% unemployment and around 10% (iirc) under employment despite all the government programs?
@@davespanksalot8413 Because in the 1950s, the government got rid of the 94% tax bracket from the 1940s, and combine that with the post-war capitalist economy, everything boomed as a result.
Is he differentiating the able poor from the disabled and mothers? Contrary to most people's perceptions, there is little welfare support for the able person. Don't expect much from the disabled and aged, and the welfare benefits for mothers/children are time limited.
You can still say Negro in an appropriate context. It was a race label-just like caucasian, latino, etc. "Nigga" or "nigger" on the other hand is totally inappropriate slang.
It’s an outdated term that doesn’t belong in today’s society. However What he said would have no less value if he had said black or African American back then or today
Sadly missed? Because in no small part to his work and the mentality of his ilk, 47% of all ice-free land is now used for human activity; plastic pollution has gone up 10-fold since the 1980s; 1 million animal species are facing extinction in the next decades; micro-plastics are infecting babies before they're even born; fish are full of heavy metals; we're now allowing drilling in the Arctic circle by companies who have made trillions and that haven't paid a cent in tax for years; there are cities in the wealthiest country in the world, the US, without clean drinking water; companies are pulling out of former mine sites without even the most basic site rehabilitation efforts; the wealthiest 3 men in America have more than the bottom 50%.
@@__teles__ I didn't even remotely say anything totalitarian, all I said was we are killing our planet through ideas from people like this man, who sounded like he had never had more than a surface relationship to any other human being in his entire life. The question for people like you is - I imagine you would do anything to protect your children and loved ones, trying to save for a house and give them the best you can? You`d throw your children under a metaphorical bus, but you wouldn't catch an actual bus to look after their future, why?
@@__teles__ how is suggesting that any and every product should be measured according to environmental degradation, and that this needs to be factored into its cost base, 'totalitarian'? Mr Friedman himself was in favour of that idea, he said so very clearly in a discussion in the mid-1970s after catalytic converters became enforceable on new cars. If we don't fix this problem, you know what's coming don't you? Real hell, and you're a fool if you don't think that could give rise to another, more dangerous and intelligent Trump (or you know which other politicians of the past), who will suggest exterminating some to save the others.
Because it is the people that elected the government. You cannot say that some mechanism is responsible when the root cause is the people that created that mechanism. Therefore, the people are responsible.
It is the lot of the simple man to assume that the work is a zero-sum gain - that one can only benefit if another loses. Capitalism, infact allows for both parties to gain mutual benefit.
Unfortunately, this is in fact a myth. Economics is actually, factually, and indisputably a zero-sum game. Just because there are losers doesn't mean there are winners. And just because there are winners means there are losers. Its hard to fathom, but what it really means is that we are far from the "economical peak"... that there is still plenty of room to grow, but it is still a finite cap, and certainly not an infinite peak. Because even something as straight-cut as mining, means you are using a limited resource. So while there are no losers, and win-win situations, it does mean you're "borrowing from the future" as you prevent future generations to mine those resources. This applies to both goods and services. There's a brilliant quote which touches on this: only a fool, or an economist, can think something infinite can come out of something finite (the Earth). There are other myths that Milton Friedman has spread, and has been misinterpreted by many. However, I still admire the man: he has wisdom, integrity and humanity. And if he had controlled the USA laws/economy, he would find out the shortcomings of his ideas, and would be the first to admit his fault, and work diligently to improve conditions. Because evidently this was his passion. He would undeniably have moved further from the Chicago School towards the Austrian School of Thought in Economics (free market of ideas, where the most accurate ones win out over time).
Sil, I have long argued that capitalism is a formula. Plunk in variables, it spits out results sorta like a calculator. Capitalism has no morals, no values. Only people can input that into the calculations. But man is not a noble creature by & large. Our history is written mostly in blood. The results are evident throughout the world. I call that economy, Crapitalism. Is there better? Yes, but it is practiced in small groups, mostly bonded through a common faith as are the Hutterites (communists in the original sense). The rest is a tale told by madmen like Lenin & Mao & Ho & PolPot. There are intentional communities by the score. They rise & fall like an orgasm. One of the best overall study of such communities has to be K. Rexroth's gem, Communalism. It's available free online at-- www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/communalism.htm Enjoy! I sure did.
I'd refrain from saying "capitalism", instead opting for "free and fair trade" since that is what's happening - you're trading one good for another and both parties believe they are gaining the same value. I'm picky this time because there are some forms of capitalism that's not exactly beneficial, e.g. crony capitalism
@@ekinteko capitalism is not a zero sum game, you must be severely mentally challenged to believe that. the wealth transfer happens because of trade, and in a trade, two parties agree and consent to trade something, when you buy an iphone it's because an iphone for you is worth more than the money you spent for it and apple sells that iphone because money are worth more than the product they create. capitalism is always a win-win, that's how trading works otherwise you don't trade if you don't like the terms.
Milton is wrong about the freedom of markets being the key driver of unemployment. Markets were free long before the late-1800s/early-1900s. Yet we didn't see massive declines in poverty continuously throughout that time. Poverty decreases through technology and efficiency gains. Industrialization drove down poverty in Milton's cited period. It did so in free markets then. It did so in less free markets then. The internet, upgrades in shipping, agriculture, etc. All these gains led to bigger yields, more supply, and the reduction in cost-of-living. This is what drives down the poverty. Free markets can help increase movement of capital, but they also can exacerbate externalities that harm other industries or consumers. Cheap consumer products can harm water systems, which hurt agriculture and aquaculture. Over-fishing can harm ecosystems, which hurts tourism. Power generation can also have adverse effects on the ecosystem, which drives up medical care costs - hurting consumers. There is no free lunch. And what's true of bad government applies to bad business. Not all bad business nor bad governments fail, but it is our duty as people to see that they do.
This was really well put! Another thing that also contributes to societal issues is how bad aspects of society from poorer areas of a country have a profound effect on the next generation. Children that grow up in such areas are less likely to succeed, not because they don’t want to, but because failings in society push more towards failure. Do correct me if I’m wrong.
@@dp6297 I would encourage anyone with this sentiment to read up on the industrialization of markets that were less free. Industrialization is about innovation and investment. The freedom of the marketplace is only tangentially related to how those transformations went. And not always in the way we might expect. Consider plant owners in Russia who didn't invest in steam engines because of cheap labor/overhead. Or Japanese factories in glass, cement, silk, brewing, etc that owe their existence to government investment.
Nikola Tesla So you are making the case that a totalitarian government is just as responsible for the economic and technological advancement of the industrial revolution? Just want to clarify
Honest question: weren’t the 1890s-1910s (his perfect time) the same period of the birth of unions in the US to protect workers who were overworked and underpaid, in unsafe environments (because it made more profit)???
@@WeighedWilson I’m sure the women who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist fire might find your blanket statement dismissive of how many bosses (not all) repeatedly treated their employees like tools or meat. What’s your solution for that? Or do you think we should do away with unions and reinstate locks on the factory floor doors?
What shocking is how many people in the comments are pointing this out. It's so plain to see that civil discussion is all but dead. It's crazy to think that it's crazy to see two sides who respectfully disagree.
You can witness this at any college in America, and of course when this lecture was given there were plenty of riotous students getting shot at Kent State. Perhaps re-examine the prior assumptions.
He implicitly establishes a causal relationship between free market and reduction of poverty in reference to the USA of the 18th and 19th century. Apart from the fact that there is no empirical evidence to back this up he is ignoring (i) the free labor (slavery) and (ii) the free natural resources (that were unexploited or taken from the natives by force) that this "free" market was based on. And by the way, these resources were free for the traders and businessmen because of government intervention in Africa and America (ie colonization). So yes, a free market system can reduce poverty among a certain group of people when other groups of people are being enslaved or wiped out or generally milked to death... by the government.
How come this same reduction of poverty was not observed to such an extent in other countries on the continent of America? They all had resources. Plus, slavery was only a thing in the south of the USA. Why did the USA have 1/4th of World GDP by 1914? Why didn't any of the other American countries which also started from virgin lands, follow suit?
"So far as poverty is concerned, there has never in history been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free enterprise system and the free market." I can't get enough of hearing him say that. 🙌
Britain had free enterprise since the 1600s. The time he cited (1850-1910) was so good because of industrialisation, not free enterprise. I don't understand how he was allowed to get away with saying that. What a grifter.
@@emilemilio3344 He addresses inequality and why it's a bad metric for assessing living standards in other presentations. But a lot of inquality has more to do with government interference than with truly free trade. As he even says in this video, "the real causes of poverty and denial of freedom are results of government action and would be eliminated if you eliminated the bad government failures."
Andrea Mendenhall I don't think anyone is talking about what people can do as individuals to buy houses. We are talking about noticable measurable discrepancies in home ownership among the citizens of our country as a whole. Taking your advice about marketing and degrees etc, if there are other factors that are serving as obstacles to the goal, you would expect reasonably that less people will be successful in achieving the goal of buying a house. We are talking about the possibility of those other obstacles. The newer generation didn't come from Mars, they were born on this planet as the sons and daughters of people like you. They didn't just magically lose these abilities. They have them same abilities and skills as the previous generations. In fact, I'm willing to bet that they have more of it than the previous generations. There was a time in this country where you could own a house on a single blue collar salary. Where was the educational and marketing then? There's nothing wrong with your advice though, it's just too narrowly focused to have any real affect on a much larger and much more complex problem
I was a high school dropout. Got a GED and went to work fulltime at age 18. Had already worked part-time from age 14. I had no college. I learned a skill by on the job training. I retired at age 47 and the only college courses I had were taken in the last 5 years, just for fun. Based upon my experiences, I believe we need fewer colleges and more trade schools. I also do not believe in government student loans. We need to change the whole concept of "higher education". People who need a loan to attend school should, like everywhere else in life, apply for a loan at a bank. Students may have to work 3 or 4 years out of high school to get a credit score for a loan, but that in itself would get rid of a lot of the bullsh()*&t degrees. When a student has to actually hold a job to earn money for school the problems like Evergreen College will end. No one will scrimp and save to take a course in "Afro-Gender Ethics of 19th Century Belgium".
It's strange that he first says that minimum wage is a bad thing and causes poverty but then he recounts being in poverty as he worked 12 hours for next to no return.
@@SteveeSmith Why is that strange? He wasn't complaining - just explaining. He didn't say that the government should have forced them to pay him more. And he got on-the-job training so that he'd be worth more going forward.
Judging by applause the room seemed to be about 50-50 which is awesome. It sucks that most debates today seem to be in a place that's heavily steeped on one side or the other.
Thought it was just me. Ben Franklin said, “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Just a reminder
“The government doesn’t have responsibility” 😂 lost me after his first sentence. Our government has a huge amount of responsibility, focusing on the individuals that make up a/our government doesn’t dissolve a government of all its responsibilities.
People are asking why don't we have the decorum nowadays as we did when this video was recorded? The answer is quite simple, we as a society, government and educational institution have changed the Standard. When standards are changed and new types of decorum are allowed in all of these facets we shouldn't then wonder why we have the outcomes that we do. Back then that type of behavior wasn't put up with and was looked down upon. Wasn't because people were self absorbed bigots. It was that there was no need to act in a manner just to try to get your way or voice heard and when you didn't get the answer you wanted you weren't supposed to kick and scream like a 2 year old that won't accept their way not being tended to as if that type of behavior is acceptable to get it. Once we allowed that behavior to be ok in our homes, schools etc. We lost the fundamental essence of proper communication. Life is filled with answers that we don't like, but there answers. So no need to keep asking the questions that you can't accept the answers to just to see if the answer will suddenly change to fit your agenda. The more we learn from scholars like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell who put forth the factual research to find the correct answers rather then the answers we may want, may we truly begin to solve the issues that we have.✌🏾🇺🇲
@@connerbarnes8428 is it right to assume from your comment that you believe that when people equalize opportunities it will result in a comparable equality of outcomes?
Most everyone did. That’s what’s so hilarious. Jamie Johnson III the heir to Johnson and Johnson wouldn’t speak to college kids unless one of them had been sentenced to public service.
Here’s the real hilarious part about Milton Friedman… He seems to believe that he made it through the great depression just by Cher well alone as opposed to the new deal policies that actually helped poor Americans like his immigrant parents survive. Without those programs? That little bald bespectacled smug midget would’ve died in the gutter.
He didn’t really answer the question: what should the government do about people who are poor, and does the government have a responsibility to them? Just basically said how great capitalism is and why those people aren’t really poor. Would have preferred to hear some specifics about the role of government
The problem with stating "other countries" when it comes to poverty is there's bottom floor for each of those countries and they differ from each other. One country's poor is another's middle class and is another's wealthy. We need to address poverty in our country alone and stop comparing it elsewhere. Most people don't care that they are better off than 99% of people, when they can't afford groceries and rent where they live. That's becoming more common.
This is extremely evident when you look at the growing homeless crisis in all of the coastal cities who are very far left leaning. Why don't you see the same in places that are centrist or right leaning? The results are overwhelmingly consistent.
@@jasondashney I would love to see some data that actually backs up what you say. Because from what I’ve read and come to understand? Poverty is extremely high in the centrist and right leaning states. So much to the point that they need federal aid from the very left leaning states that you’re attempting to demonize.
So many extremists in the comments section, with the arguments being between democratic socialists and hardcore libertarians. There is a spectrum and you can be inbetween those views, advocating for capitalism with some intervention and public welfare, I don't know why the more moderate views aren't here despite being probably being the most common among the general populace.
No No "NO TRUE CAPITALIST WOULD DO SUCH A THING"! Look up No true scotsman. It's not all or nothing there are moderate views one could hold. Using your logic a person could only be a lassez-faire capitalist or a socialist, even if they still believe goods should be traded for profit.
I did not say "no true capitalist would do such a thing". I said that true capitalism does not have intervention. In doing so I did not commit the No True Scotsman. Capitalism has a definition, intervention cannot exist according to that definition. By stating "true capitalism" I was referring to capitalism as it is defined, ergo excluding theories such as 'welfare capitalism' and mercantilism which are distinctly different from capitalism. By "advocating for capitalism with some intervention" you are not advocating for capitalism, but rather a system which borrows from capitalism. A welfare capitalist is a welfare capitalist, they are not a capitalist. The two systems, while sharing the title "capitalist", are not one in the same, and as such should be treated differently. If someone claimed they were "advocating for capitalism with social welfare programs" I would tell them that they are not advocating capitalism, that they are instead advocating welfare capitalism. The two systems are different, to treat them as the same is ridiculous.
No No Well sure that's a given but it's still a variation of capitalism. The definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Even a mixed economy would still have a majority of goods under private ownership and that this would still be "inbetween" laissez faire and socialism would it not?
Your own definitions works against you. Capitalism = A system in when a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Mixed Economy = Majority of goods under private ownership. Ergo, a mixed economy would not be a capitalist economy, as there are goods that are not under private ownership. Just because something is related to capitalism, does not mean it is capitalism.
I'm from the UK where our minimum wage was introduced after it was in the US (shocking, really, since we Brits are usually more progressive and compassionate that the Americans!). Min wage has lifted so many people out of extreme poverty, and even Freidrich Hayek, a diehard classical and economic liberal, was in favour of min wage.
He said that the welfare state produces poor people. I'm British, so I don't know much about the American welfare system and the conditions of the people that preceded it, but my word would the poor, shoeless, cold, starving families in Britain who were given a decent standard of living precisely because of the welfare state (which was introduced post-war when the country was absolutely broke) have something to say about that.
how many of them get off welfare and better themselves? Welfare in Britain is appalling. So is the social system in general. Single moms making more per year than tradesmen lmao.
And we should have special Milton Friedman classes every now and then and be tested on Friedman's monetary policy every week so as to not forget what he's done.
Yes by all means let’s teach the theories of Milton Friedman and his little fantasies about the free market and competition and how it will somehow magically lead to greater freedom and liberty for all when in reality all it has done is grant greater capital power to the few and subjugated the rest. Jesus H Christ have you people learned nothing about how this man’s theories actually led to socioeconomic decay…?
@@zeyadsaeed9580Right, talking from the dummy with the IPhone, in case you don't realize, dummy. You Americans are the rich compared to the rest of the world. Now give me all of your property in the name of global social justice. What? Not into it anymore?
sorry, that is not what Friedman means according to the video. What he means is the responsibility is for all of the population, the you and I, but not the government, and he claims that the means to fulfill the responsibility is the free enterprise system which he claims that has contributed to the uplifting from poverty to a great extent, and attribute the remaining huge poverty to the government. Personally I do not agree with that, but no one is responsible for the poverty is not what he is expressing in the video.
The worst thing about America is that people are proud of suffering. I grew up in poverty and it shouldn't have been possible. My mother worked six days a week and we could barely afford to keep a roof over our heads. The cost of life goes up in this country and our government does nothing about it. Families sacrificed on the altar of laissez-faire capitalism.
@@paulcollopy4043 Milton's min wage argument is that employers have to discriminate against black workers because theyre forced to pay them the same wages. They would hire them, if they could underpay them. As for the entry lvl positions argument, it doesnt work when a minimum wage 30 years ago could get you more than a minimum wage today. Wages need to adjust for cost of living, which is what we dont have today.
The fundamental difference between "left" and "right" thinking in the US is, generally speaking, collectivism vs individualism respectively. Nice talking with you as well. Peace right back at ya!
Yes. This is the crux of it. Individuals are real and groups (group identities) are abstractions. Treating abstractions as real entities leads to absurd conclusions and, as Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
What responsibility do the poor have to the rest of society? How are they held to account for this? If we all owe each other a duty of care, then so do the poor. If I don't pay my taxes I go to jail. What happens to the poor when they don't pay their fair share?
Living standards rose more between World War II and today, a period in which advanced economies have been organized as hybrid socialist-capitalist systems. Go to the World Bank web site, look up which countries have the highest public expenditures (% GDP) and which have the lowest.
It was quite entertaining and a nice metaphor, though I suppose it could be argued that a doctor treats cancer with science and Friedman is at best trying to treat poverty with ideals
It's a great soundbite but it's also somewhat nonsense. In almost every workplace you'll find higher-ups that try and tell the rank and file how to do things, and they make rules for the rank and file that make no sense because they themselves don't know how to do that job. If you don't have experience doing what I'm doing, then it's likely you're telling me how to do it wrong. It reminds me of the expression "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
@@GalryZ Thomas Sowell was a student of Miltons. He's still graduated a full-blown Marxist. Friedman did not convince him. What eventually convinced Thomas was seeing how the leftists operate in the real world.
6. Working 12 hours for 78 cents is not a badge of honor; it's disgusting and only proves my point that if not regulated, big business will take advantage any and every way they can. Oh wait, did they give him job training? 7. The argument that the poor are better off than the average person in Russia is . . . I can't even answer this one it's so ridiculous.
Yes, they did, little kid. They did give him on the job training, the first training he got is to get better so that he never have to work at that place again. Does that hurt your little feelings? Human labour doesn't have a minimum value, because it doesn't produce any kind of minimum value product. Go learn some math and spare the employers of your incompetence.
He overlooks the fact that improvements to the welfare of working people were not the consequence of the free market, they were the consequence of unionization, which worked against those corporate interests who sought to keep labor costs down. There has never been a true free market, here or anywhere, in all of history.
@@someonenotnoone free market takes away that decision from you and gives it to the invisible hand. The decision being do we want more jobs or better wages meaning do we want a minority of unemployed people to be really poor or a majority of emplyed people to be able to provide to themselves without being well off nor poor
@@eliaschlela1975 "invisible hand" is a euphemism for "what people with money want." There's nothing free about "do what I want or starve." Without democratic or equitable access to the underlying natural resources or value thereof, there is no free market. Capricious finders keepers rules applied to such scarce resources does not make a free market.
@@someonenotnoone it s easier for people with money to influence the governement than to influence the invisble hand of the market. The only true democratic economic system is free market since consumers vote with money traded for goods and services. Access to natural ressources should be equal to all but finding the ressource takes labor and time the finder of the ressource should be able to keep it or there would be no incentive to find any ressource or value. Equal opportunity is key. Other system wil result in "do what i want and starve".
The representation of the left as compassionate and the right as heartless is a false dichotomy. The left feels (some sincerely) for the poor but resolves to aid them with other people's money, by compulsion by the state, under threat of fines, guns and prison; what kind of compassion is that? Easy, it isn't at all. The private sector has charity and it is quite vibrant. If you feel your heart strings pulled for people, get off your ass and go help people, not demand that somebody else with guns force everyone to cough up money, to sieve it through an inefficient bureaucracy and create a dependent population. This system is ultimately cultivated to create a cycle of dependency and obligation leading to votes to maintain that order. And if you want to know, yes, I do volunteer work, in fact I was a volunteer for a charity for two years, full time.
charity is putting band aids on a cancer patient. Charity just absolves you of all guilt of living in a capitalist society that exploits the people you give charity to. In reality charity is bad.
The lefts' compassion only exist in the minds of people that haven't seen their cities. I would love to ask young men in chicago and detroit how that compassion is working for them.
How's free market doing now, Mr Friedman? Government should represent people's interests and not corporate malevolent interests. Highly unemployment rates and homelessness and still growing. Thanks to free market.
You're just repeating someone else's speech. Free Market works, of course, but for big corporations. I have been living here for 12 years now and all I see is the impoverishment of the American people.
Ok Julie, I am very appreciative of your opinion and I respect it. Saying that this is not result of free market is just one part. Please, in your opinion, what is it then that is taking American economy down the tubes? Unless you believe everything is working just fine.
Murderers kill other people because it makes sense to them. Companies exploit employees because it makes sense to them. Btw, unemployment rate is just the way corporations want it to be, because it makes sense to them. People have no control over it and besides that they believe everything is ok.
The only time I’ve ever heard a white person use the word ‘negro’ while sincerely making a point for the benefit of African Americans. Great answer, great video, great economist.
Slick talking dude. Heard many like him in raising. He really makes it sound so easy. Government is owned by the corporation and his propaganda is meant for the working class to accept being poor is just part of life in a free county.
Enforced minimum wage, far more than automation as often alleged, have single-handedly eliminated entry level and non-skill jobs, where otherwise the average high school and college student would be partly or fully employed. Concurrently, subsidization of various sorts have disincentivized the same average student from seeking out the remaining jobs not destroyed by enforced minimum wage. Additionally, Milton Friedman today would have been shouted down inside the lecture hall while mayhem erupts outside the lecture hall, followed online by punctuated dislikes, slanderous comments, social cancellation even professional ruination. Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice. Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Oh my. Mr. Milton reminds me of my newspaper bike delivery at twelve, which was legal for $20 a month (rain or shine, 5:00 am weekends and after school ). Funny, I felt empowered to bring some support to my family.
Interesting point. Not all jobs empower individuals or provide some kind of stepping stone to bigger opportunities. You have successfully challenged my preconceptions on the subject.
@@stephenpaul7499 I would read the Register every day helped me improve my English, and it helped me to think critically because some of the stories I read were inspiring and gave me strength to improve my life.
45 years later and median incomes have steadily declined, education rates have declined while getting much more expensive, housing costs have skyrocketed (with some old fashioned price fixing to boot!), and wealth has concentrated even more at the top as countries like China and India out pace the USA in growth. The free market types have been proven utterly wrong as the advance of technology has made most human labor superfluous, and the labor still needed can be supplied by 3rd world countries that undercut American wages. All you need as the ultimate repudiation of what was said in this video is the overwhelming current support for Trump on the right, with his government policies aimed at curbing the excesses of the free market regarding the outsourcing or insourcing of cheap labor. Also, Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark are significantly better on quality of life for their citizens than the USA, thanks to a government formed around direct investments in the population.
At least these students were able to engage in a dialog. He wouldn't even be able to speak at a university today.
+Keith Meeks I was just thinking. My god, the students have no brains and only their yelling bits. No thinking. Makes me sad.
It is surprising to watch them yell at anyone with a different opinion.
+Keith Meeks He would be demonized by the left nowadays
+MrJimmy3459 he IS demonized today. Of course what he said is completely taken out of context.
Keith Meeks Yes, but he's since passed and his word is not mainstream. I guess what I meant to say is if he was alive today he would be demonized so much by the left they would probably compare him to Hitler.
Props to the student who asked the question. He formulated his question well and listened carefully. This is something not as self-explicatory anymore.
Agree
Also, I would argue that by listening, he must have analyzed what was being said. They all must have. Nice to see.
@@MartinME3 Yes, today this would be a shouting match, if Friedman had been allowed to be there to begin with.
give him no props, the reason he shuts his stupid mouth is that back then they didn't have the number, now they got the number so they know they can easily overwhelm the conference
Agreed. Milton Friedman today would have been shouted down inside the lecture hall while mayhem erupts outside the lecture hall, followed by online punctuated dislikes, slanderous comments, social cancellation even professional ruination.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
"Have you ever been on welfare... or poor?"
Freedman: "Of course. More so that most of the people in this room. How many of you, have worked a 12 hour day and got paid 78 cents?... Is there one of you who is going to say, 'I don't want a doctor to treat me for cancer, unless he himself has had cancer?' "
... ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS! I wish this man was still around.
love it
+itchyisvegeta Same here. This man was a true genius.
+itchyisvegeta Lmao good burn but for me this was the least engaging part of the video because it had nothing to do with his otherwise excellently formulated argument
And today he would be entitled to a minimum wage.
***** Medicine is a science. A doctor is a medical practitioner. Derp yourself, egghead.
Even though I think Milton misses a lot here, I realize people give him a lot of credit because he comes off feeing like an authority. But most of the people commenting who do agree with his points, mostly people who identify as conservative or libertarian, won’t focus on the main issue with our current systems status. Money and business in places it shouldn’t be. Corporate lobbying, insider trading, and poorly allocated government subsidies. Friedman would have recognized any of these as inefficiencies, but the politicians keep those topics out of public view. Those topics could literally beget a big change in our system, but most people would rather live in their little two party reality TV dramas.
This^!
Unlike you, who is intellectually above the rest of us and, by God, ought to be listened to, and furthermore, given power and prestige and all the things that go with that.
Phfffft!
@frankhalbiger6007, I do stand beside you in seeing the apathy of "most people would rather live in their little two party reality TV dramas." I am formulating some ideas on rejecting partisan politics, and helping people to see how our lives are so much more complex and interesting than 'us against them'. By my formulation, partisan politics and the overarching Identity Politics needs to be fully rejected if we are to find progress and greater community with each other. Partisan politics has us taking walking steps while standing on a pogo stick. Neither side wants to other to claim a win or to advance, because it makes the other feel as if they have lost or been set back. So, we only seem to pivot on the pogo stick. We instead need representatives who stand on principles in serving their districts, and who honestly work for policy wins for their districts, not working for empowering their parties.
I do think every word of Friedman is correct in this one short video. What is not raised there is the excessive income claimed by individuals who did not create the value needed to justify their levels of income. They instead have been exploiting other people who did create the value (but were not paid a consummate income), or they have been exploiting community systems for their excessively greedy bypassing of creating true value for the economy. Then too often, those resources, those ill-gotten income dollars are squandered away in tax havens where the economy cannot re-circulate that economic "life blood". Be on the watch for #RegulateGreed, and #Aim4Equity and #AntiPartisan Candidates.
That’s why Trump has Elon and Vivek taking care of these issues. 👍
I just saw a liberal student ask a question and remain silent to hear a response. How did we get to this point here and now?
Post modernism.
One way of explaining it is "Feelings are superior to facts."
Government education/indocdrination, not proper education or upbringing by moral parents.
@@55Quirll That helps but doesn't exactly answer the question asked.
@@artofthepossible7329 We may never know, compare how we were raised and then compare how the people of today were raised, that may help. I liked how I was raised by my parents, we were a family and not put in the care of other people, both of my parents worked so I would say they did a good job. Those of today are spoiled brats, having everything handed to them, not having to work for something. I am far from a perfect person but I take responsibility for my actions and want to learn.
@@55Quirll
"I take responsibility for my actions and want to learn." A great step into the world of common sense.
I would have loved to see Friedman vs. Sanders.
+Matthew Roach Friedman lost. Greenspan, Friedman's acolyte, renounced friedmans and his own world view after the recession. He was wrong. I agree with both on different subjects. They both agree competition is key. Here is a quote from greenspan at age 82. The first is Rep. Henry A. Waxman asking Greenspan a Question:
"You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others," said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. "Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?"
Mr. Greenspan conceded: "Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact."
+Bush The Destroyer of Evil I really don't think it is fair to lump Friedman in with Greenspan. I know Friedman still believed in certain regulations for the economy which I oppose, but I really don't think Friedman would have been for the distortions taking place in the subprime market under Greenspan.
I invite you to cite some sources or quotes. I am open to being proven wrong on this one since I have not look at exactly what Friedman believed on the subject.
+Bush The Destroyer of Evil Subprime crisis was due to government policy not free markets:
"Initially, the 1992 *legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan purchases be related to affordable housing*. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements, and *eventually (under the Bush Administration) a 56 percent minimum was established*. To fulfill the requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac established programs to purchase $5 trillion in affordable housing loans, and *encouraged lenders to relax underwriting standards to produce those loans.*"
+Bush The Destroyer of Evil Your absolutely wrong about Friedman. Friendman said in an interview that he would like to abolish the fed (which caused the housing market crash and the 08 finacial crises). If Friedman was in control of our government, non of the things that Greenspan is apologizing for would have happened.
+Unknown Person partially true. Friedman's idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve was really good, but he never seemed to address the imbalanced conditions of the greed of wealth and power of the rich over the poor and the exploitation of labor by the rich and powerful.
Wow, no one walked out, no one held up a 'check your privilege' sign, no one started a cancerous chant, no one barricaded the door to stop attendees from getting in, no one protested a capitalist speaker voicing his opinion and perhaps most ironically, the boy asking the question wasn't a complete halfwit.
What a time to have been alive.
you can hear people hissing in the crowd, that was their equivalent of chanting
So? That's what he's saying. That though people may have objected, they didn't behave as they do now. What? Did you think you enlightened all of us or something with your retort?
alright Scott, you may have a point. i appreciate you expressing it in a needlessly hostile way too! thanks!
clearly scott is a part of this problem.
@@cornoc you deserved his retort. Your comment was either a calculated deception or you're plain stupid.
Milton Friedman’s mother: Your room is a mess! You need to clean this up.
Milton Friedman: First of all, rooms are wonderful; nothing has ever protected more people from sleeping out in the cold than rooms. Many kids in the Soviet Union don’t even have rooms, let alone in India and China. Now I’m not saying my room is perfect-it’s not. It probably should be cleaner. But you look at my room compared to any of my friends’ rooms, and mine is far better. Furthermore -
Milton Friedman’s mother: Oh, good night!
Eric Cox surely there is a logic 101 course you could take at your local high school or junior college. In the meantime look up “fallacy”.
Eric Cox lmfao
Ken Perlman hey Ken, it’s a joke
Jajaj!
Eric Cox 😆😆😆
It amazes me how many people think Friedman is a conservative. He is a libertarian, very different...
At this point it seems that conservatives are trying to ironically conserve the classical liberal principles.
haha, at least in most of the economic issues, yes...
Friedman's argument presupposes blacks want to work, which I haven't found to be the case. Crime (drugs, robberies, shoplifting, car theft, etc) is both more profitable and less effort. We have to reduce that incentive, which means cracking down on crime HARD (aggressive policing, tougher sentences, tougher prison conditions, etc). Nobody, not even Trump, is discussing that. We also need welfare reform to separate the needy from the abusers.
Libertarians are very conservative. They just happen to be very liberal as well.
The word "conservative" is completely muddied- what comes to your mind when you use that word? Modern "conservatives" in the US still support federal income tax, often only slightly lower than liberals. Libertarians support 0% income tax.
If Milton Friedman gave this same talk today people would run shrieking to their safe spaces.
This kind of talk would be called "hate speech" by today's standards...
+jason starek Yes, and it's very sad how they resort to such low level name-calling when they can't come up with a valid counterpoint.
Students wouldn't have to run to their safe spaces: If Milton Friedman was available for lectures today, most colleges would prohibit him from speaking.
ROGER2095 Indeed...the idea of personal responsibility is dangerous.
jason starek I know, right? Why have accountability?
3:50 the calm, concentration and softness of his speech is amazing, even when the bro shouts at him he keeps it and answers pragmatically
Students were 20x more intelligent in those days. He can actually formulate a legitimate question that makes sense and isn't filled with crazy emotions.
It’s the logical conclusion of feminist indoctrination of every kid being “special”.
@@MusicalMemeology Agreed. This whole education system that hands over free trophy without merit is toxic as shit. Now everyone thinks he/she deserves something just by being alive....
Probably helps he wasn't worried about insane student loan payments, unaffordable Healthcare, zero job opportunities when he left college and a rent bill a five times more than his parents would have paid for their starter apartment. In short, the times they have changed quite a bit.
@@asherujudo7383 Yep, you're right. That must be it
@@frankxu4795 I think kids realize that receiving non-merit trophies is bad, and that it creates a want in them to attain a trophy for real merit. The issue is that many of those people end up not wanting to put forth the effort that warrants that merit.
I miss the old days, back in the day when liberals would actually try to question and have a debate.
Now we have Trigglypuff.
And Smugglypuff and Aids Skrillex.
TheSlowcheetah89 Mr.Friedman is Liberal, the classic one, the true Liberal. The Liberal today are the Leftist.
He was not an Obama liberal, a Krugman liberal, a Moyers liberal, an Occupy Democrats liberal, or a Daily Kos liberal.
farid abdurrahman the first libertarians were leftists like Prodhound brah
MustafaHolyWarrior This will change. Society will tire of these extremists mouthing off. Reasonable people like reasonable people; the nutters you mention are on the fringe, and will be pushed out. Give it time....
Milton is incorrect stating that "government does not have the ability to respond (response-ability)." There are some things easier done by people in government and some things done easier by people one on one. Roads are a great example of this, as is housing policy, which influences how many people are poor.
I guess you don't see what you don't want to see and don't hear what you don't want to hear.
Government absolutely does not have the ability to end or even minimize poverty except by staying out of the way.
@@m444ss People who believe they know the right answer think like this. For the rest of us we actually have to talk to people and respect their opinions.
I love the ease Milton has with choosing precise words to describe clear ideas and relationships. I am a Miltonite.
He basically just answered like a politician and answered the question he wished he'd been asked while avoiding the question he was actually asked - ie, seeing as structural disadvantage and poverty traps exist as a form of market failure (a failure of the free enterprise and free markets he then spends his whole speech espousing), should we not use government as a form of collective organising to address those market failures. He basically starts his response with the idea that Thatcher is known and rightly ridiculed for - that society doesn't exist, that the individual is the be all and end all...which is as nonsense in theory as it is in practice. The fact we have and need governments in the first place disproves it. For better or worse, we do live in a society, one where we organise and collectively create and manage common infrastructure, resources and institutions. Self-reliance is a myth in an atomised capitalist society, particularly one in which people are either advantaged or disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth.
Neoliberal idealogues love Friedman's ideas but time has shown that for markets to function optimally, they do require intervention that addresses market failures. Friedman's ideas are so popular and widespread because they served (and still serve) the agenda of people who benefit the most from an unregulated capitalist system - namely, the people who already have capital. The right wing and business lobby invested heavily in think tanks and propaganda that ultimately captured much of modern Western policymaking and ushered in the age of neoliberalism with all its empty promises...and has seen the gap between the rich and the poor become ever more a chasm
@@cm88388This has been addressed elsewhere. Where market fails, for the same reason and even more so, government also fails. At least in freedom, you can fund what you say you believe in, and/or persuade others to your cause, not just virtue signal while straining the social fabric by imposing what you believe is virtuous upon the unwilling. Government intervention brings deadweight loss.
The most illustrative form of this is the TSA. Where the government is justified in its function of protecting citizens from dangers outside and inside of the country, yet they fail miserably, cause more issues than they solve, and cost way too much. All of that for a security theater.
The source of corruption is the person who tries to live off of others, no matter how well his intentions may be, and intentions are rarely truly well. Upon reflection, most of it is self-interest, and that's not wrong in and of itself, as long as no one is coerced into it.
If something is truly a problem, then charity or the market will provide. Wanting something but not being willing and able to pay for it is not demand in the economic sense. It's just a wish.
This speech was so articulated and needs to be heard. I think we’ve lost perspective.
"A [governmental] machine for producing poor people." - Does anyone still think that this is accidental?
Modern "democratic" governments need dependent serfs, not free-thinking independent citizens.
Yeah
America’s modern prison system is the true machine for producing a poor and subservient class
Nope research charlotte iserbyt
@@erwee7329 Great tip - thanks.
It’s sad that this is an old video. With such beautiful words, things didn’t really change. This man needs to give this speech again today.
Neoliberalism was tested in Latin America in the way that Freidman and his school preached, and the result was poverty, corruption, and economic backwardness, massive debts that continue to hold back the development of the area.
Enron and speculative bubbles are the result of a lack of regulations. Freidman and his recipes are like communism, they are recipes that say they will solve all human problems and only produce the opposite results.
The only thing governments have learned from the chicago boys is that they must go into debt to bail out companies supposedly to avoid the Great Depression again and that has only created more debt and more poverty.
this asshole's economic policies were successfully applied in Chile and all that did was murder a lot of people and make the nation far more dependent on foreign capital than it already was. fuck milton friedman and everybody who loves him.
As much as I disagreed with it, I really admired and respected that student's question. I think it is a reasonably fair question to ask, and like always Friedman articulated a brilliant response that everyone can understand. I wish he was here today to debate Krugman and Obama... Haha
Friedman's argument presupposes blacks want to work, which I haven't found to be the case. Crime (drugs, robberies, shoplifting, car theft, etc) is both more profitable and less effort. We have to reduce that incentive, which means cracking down on crime HARD (aggressive policing, tougher sentences, tougher prison conditions, etc). Nobody, not even Trump, is discussing that. We also need welfare reform to separate the needy from the abusers.
All blacks in America don't want to work? I'm black and I live in a low-income area. Even the drug dealers I know want to work; just not for minimum wage because it can't pay any bills or provide a living. They have felonies a lot of the times which makes them unmarketable on the job market. To make a sweeping statement such as "All black people in America do not desire to work" is pretty irrational and false, considering the statistics are showing that we blacks are more productive in college every year and are making advances in the workforce every year. The percentage of "blacks" who rather do crime is only a small segment of the population. Really amazing to hear you say that literally every single black in America doesn't have the desire to work a job because they rather steal cars. Car theft numbers don't even equate to the population of Blacks, neither does shoplifting numbers and robberies. & How is car theft more profitable than working when there's no way to even resale a stolen vehicle? Lol. and there are less successful drug dealers than successful. If every black person in America were a drug dealer because it's more profitable than a job, how would the numbers work? Friedman also mentioned "black teenagers"...Jesus, do you hate black people just because of the actions of a few that you've seen on TV or heard in a rap song...or seen in your city? That's ridiculously hateful.
Or, instead of putting more people into prison for victimless crimes, we end the drug war and stop wrecking poor communities. But then I suppose whoever is REALLY bringing the drugs into the United States (wink wink, we all know who that is) would actually have competition.
Friedman free market economic policies failed in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. That is how we got Trump.
@@pakpala1 that's a nice thought, but we don't have Friedman's policies.
I graduated UF in 2012 and even then a speech as brilliant as this would have never occurred without screams and people walking out.
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
@@edithbannerman4 doing well. How are
You?
@@robertgendron4683 Great, how’s your day going and what’re you up to?
@@edithbannerman4 great so far, do we know each other?
@@robertgendron4683 I’m not sure we do know each other but we can if possible, where you located?
Milton's responses to audience comments are so quick and thoughtful. Amazing!
The guy who asked the question looks like a young Henry Cavill lol
LawUntoMyself Who’s Henry Cavill?
And Friedman looks like Chiang kai-shek without a moustache lol
@@CocoTaveras8975 Dude who portrayed superman in recent DC movies
LeoDahVee Oh gotcha. I wouldn’t have ever guessed that, because I prefer Marvel! 😉
He was hot.
Anytime Friedman says “let me be precise and specific” you know it’s ab to get real
It’s rather ironic that he says that he’s going to be precise and specific instead gives basically dogma and his own opinion instead of actual data.
@@theQuestion626 yet, everything he said is correct. it's ironic that anyone would fault him for that.
actually, he was precise. rather than speaking in generalities, he precisely listed three factors that contribute to poverty. so even more ironic that anyone would claim he wasn't precise.
@@m444ss Really? Can you tell me where he was actually correct?
Where was he precise? What three factors did he list that contribute to poverty?
@@theQuestion626This bullshit that you say is why noone listens to you. Stupidity.
Henry Cavill learns economics from Friedman.
But for real, that was actually an excellent question, and unsurprisingly, Friedman gave a great answer.
he didnt answer the question.
be smart
@@rubensantosfrasco5687 He answered it perfectly fine. The answer is the government has no responsibility to the poor.
Be attentive
@@kurtshaw229 no i didnt, he came out with his favourite fallacious, the extraordinary development of USA. to me he just could realized that his model cant eliminate poverty.
@@rubensantosfrasco5687 Well i dont think you can eliminate poverty at all, but we dont know if his model can eliminate poverty unless we try it or not.
@@rubensantosfrasco5687 I actually believe equality is impossible
It is amazing how many people think prosperity is free. They don't believe we have to achieve prosperity; they think it is free just by wishing for it and voting.
But prosperity has to be created through work. Not just "jobs" but also teaching our children what a good work ethic is, decreasing Government dependence, accepting responsibility for your actions, and realize our blessings that we do have, not just glorify the things that we don't have.
Do you not see an aristocracy in place? Social mobility is at an all time low and only getting lower. I’m prosperous however I don’t want a social of increased polarisation even if my child are the wealthy. I love the concept of Ubuntu, how can you be truly happy in America with such levels of poverty all around you?
Well said.
How prosperous can a society be when everyone is working against one another?
@@PistonAvatarGuy One of the benefits of the free market is it incentivises individuals with different goals to co-operate for mutual benefit.
@@magneticman245 No it doesn't, because their only goal will be to compete for profit. Look at SpaceX and Blue Origin, are they cooperating, or are they competing? Compare that to the large-scale cooperation that took place during the Apollo program, and the rapid pace at which that program progressed, relative to current space programs.
Superman asking Lex Luthor how to solve poverty.
Hahahahaha
@tlessmo Luthor is also a ruthless tyrant and mobster so theres that lol
He does look a lot like cavil
Ridiculous Rascal sounds like you’re talking about the state.
Neo Monk lol
I have learnt alot about Friedman in macroeconomics classes.. The lectures are coming to life. This guy deserved the nobel prize he got.
Sure
Same here learned about him in macroeconomics class
He got a Nobel prize in economics which is basically a meaningless award also his economic theories contributed to incredible socioeconomic disparity that spans the globe. So you’re basically learning lessons about a charlatan and a dogmatist whom posited on theories that failed spectacularly.
@@theQuestion626 I respectfully disagree with the comment. Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize in Economics recognized his significant contributions to the field. While his theories are subject to debate, labeling him as a charlatan or dogmatist oversimplifies his complex ideas. Economic outcomes are influenced by various factors, and attributing global socioeconomic disparity solely to Friedman's theories is an oversimplification.
@@thedeno6350 A bit of an oversimplification, however we have to not be so dismissive of the elements of his contributions to the economic failures that have played the United States since he was held up as some kind of economic mastermind. Literally his entire theories were applied to the Chilean economy durian the Pinochet made regime, and it tanked the country in no time at all. America had a growing middle class that was the envy of the world an actual wages that grew with productivity, but once Friedmans theories along with Laffers you saw the stagnation of wages, outsourcing a good jobs, the crushing of unions, increase of work or exploitation. So with all due respect? So much can actually be blamed on the failures of Milton Friedman as well as those who follow along with his ideology. His noble prize in economics, that itself is ultimately meaningless given that history has proven that this man really didn’t base his theories on anything that resembled logic. Just listen to the man speak. He doesn’t use scientific modeling, he doesn’t use impartial pragmatic thinking, virtually everything he says it’s just line for line libertarian dogma. Economics is a complex field, following this man’s work and his personal philosophies was a huge disservice to the United States. We can literally blame America’s increase in poverty and wage disparity and wealth disparity because of the neoliberal policies that he and men like him push for and got.
“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
Everybody's using their brains and words here, very refreshing.
Freedman totally disregards systematic corruption
"The best way to help the poor is by not being one of them."
-Ayn Rand (who attributed the quote to Reverend Ike)
@Santa Claus
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
She was on welfare
How can I help the poor if I'm one of them? - Jay-Z
@wimmisky
Go ahead, fill cyberspace with your vast profundity.
@@paulsletten8985
Admittedly, it would be tough.
The issue is that the standard of living for most Americans is dropping. What was once affordable with 1 income needs 2 incomes now. What was once a valuable college degree is now the bare minimum. What was once worth a whole month of groceries now only lasts a week or two. All while American wages remain stagnant (so real-wages & standard of living is declining for the American people).
One of the finest analogies ever. "Would you not want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he himself has a cancer"
That was a terrible analogy. The doctor is treating the cancer. He understands the disease. He knows that this medication or that surgery will work. This economist isn’t treating anything. He’s theorising about the societal benefits of paying working poor even less - thinks his pithy line about having previously had a poorly paid job is some sort of bona fide 🤦🏻♂️
@@ManofMunster So rich man cant tell something about poor ? He might understands money and knows how it works or way to generate money. After all doctor is a theorizing about the cancer and doing the treatments based on the that.
@@ManofMunster Not really. It worked perfectly fine against the comment shouted out by the gent right before.
@@ManofMunster No it was a perfect analogy. You don't have to be blind to lead the blind in fact it is detrimental.
@@ManofMunster a minimum wage does not improve a person's earnings - it simply limits the minimum amount a company can pay you. if your productivity is not sufficient to justify a minimum wage you will be permanently unemployed. there is a reason why programmers/financial analyst/engineers do not need a minimum wage. your productivity determines your wage and companies will not pay you more (or hire you) than what your productivity is worth.
Hey Bill Maher, are you listening? You might learn something for once.
That would've been dope if he was alive today and able to appear on the show....Definitely would be a teaching moment.
True! XD
Yay! :)))
He schooled Donahue so it would be just like that.
Best comment ever.
Milton's arguments are so good that today most of the world's poor people can actually see these videos on their own smartphone. Something that was incomprehensible back when they were first recorded.
oh wow... people have to slave away for 40 years before having the chance to own some land but they have shiny screen. WTF i love capitalism now?!
How are his arguments even remotely relevant given that his theories actually contributed to the exacerbation of poverty? But I agree with you. It’s good that poor people can see this smug little shit basically justify theories that contribute to their poverty and their subjugation.
And where do those smartphone component get made? In China because the free market incentivizes immediate returns and authoritarian governments can exploit that to move manufacturing to their country and effectively shift the global balance of power.
Much of what Friedman said was a product of his time and was vindicated by the post ww2 period, but the time since then, the past 40 years or so, have shown that Keynesian economics are so powerful that no free enterprise economy can compete in a global setting with other economies propped up by the governments of their countries. On manufacturing, heavy handed governments like China excel, on quality of life for the citizenry, social welfare countries like in Scandinavia excel. Countries like the USA excel only in making the ownership class wealthy at the expense of all other concerns.
tell the people who's homes were destroyed to let companies mine lithium and the lives and health of those working in lithium mines destroyed with no gurantee of economic stability or job security while corporation's executives have income and bonuses, a fraction of which would guarantee the health and economic stability of their employees.
These were actually pretty poor arguments if i gave him the benefit of the doubt that he really believes them. But at worst and more likely, they were complete BS. So much so that he even stammers a little because hes forcing lies. Ive watched a lot of Miltons speeches when i was younger and considered myself a libertarian, and never stammers or stutters like that when hes making a good point or is saying something he believes to be true.
The student asked an intelligent and well-articulated question, and Friedman responded with an equally intelligent, well-articulated, and better informed answer. But the world ignored his core concept -- that government is the problem in subsidizing a welfare system that makes poverty self-perpetuating. We have a duty to the poor: to help them learn new skills and become productive. The poor have a duty too: to learn such skills, become productive, and live responsibly. The present welfare system is a give-away program with no reciprocal obligation to society, which discourages the very values needed to break out of poverty and begin building wealth. Friedman is now gone, but the same welfare system keeps chugging unhappily along, perpetuating financial slavery. Why? Because a perpetual welfare system assures a certain political group of elites guaranteed votes. To those elites, the dependency of others is a wonderful thing.
I agree with your first part but disagree with the second. It's not a conspiracy. These people really do think they are helping. They really do think what they are doing is necessary. I don't think we will ever solve any societal problems so long as each side thinks that the other one is lying. In so many of our big debates, each side tells the truth but is so sure that the other side is lying. The abortion debate is the best example of this. I think it's very counterproductive.
Out of curiosity, what would be your explanation as to why the '50s saw equal or less unemployment with almost no government welfare programs yet today there is around 4% unemployment and around 10% (iirc) under employment despite all the government programs?
@@davespanksalot8413
Because in the 1950s, the government got rid of the 94% tax bracket from the 1940s, and combine that with the post-war capitalist economy, everything boomed as a result.
Is he differentiating the able poor from the disabled and mothers? Contrary to most people's perceptions, there is little welfare support for the able person. Don't expect much from the disabled and aged, and the welfare benefits for mothers/children are time limited.
Just imagine someone said the word negro in a situation like this in 2020
Actually Negro means black in Spanish
How is this at all relevant? What are you trying to say with your comment?
You can still say Negro in an appropriate context. It was a race label-just like caucasian, latino, etc. "Nigga" or "nigger" on the other hand is totally inappropriate slang.
@@jsuisdetrop just a little history lesson on how the N word came about
th-cam.com/video/rCHGr4JoEZE/w-d-xo.html
It’s an outdated term that doesn’t belong in today’s society. However What he said would have no less value if he had said black or African American back then or today
"You don't want a doctor to treat you unless he himself has had cancer?"
You are sadly missed Friedman, we need your no nonsense approach again!
Sadly missed? Because in no small part to his work and the mentality of his ilk, 47% of all ice-free land is now used for human activity; plastic pollution has gone up 10-fold since the 1980s; 1 million animal species are facing extinction in the next decades; micro-plastics are infecting babies before they're even born; fish are full of heavy metals; we're now allowing drilling in the Arctic circle by companies who have made trillions and that haven't paid a cent in tax for years; there are cities in the wealthiest country in the world, the US, without clean drinking water; companies are pulling out of former mine sites without even the most basic site rehabilitation efforts; the wealthiest 3 men in America have more than the bottom 50%.
@@BigBlueMan118 Your totalitarian hell will be much worse.
@@__teles__ I didn't even remotely say anything totalitarian, all I said was we are killing our planet through ideas from people like this man, who sounded like he had never had more than a surface relationship to any other human being in his entire life.
The question for people like you is - I imagine you would do anything to protect your children and loved ones, trying to save for a house and give them the best you can? You`d throw your children under a metaphorical bus, but you wouldn't catch an actual bus to look after their future, why?
@@BigBlueMan118 Your ideas only work by totalitarianism. Look at you banning single use plastic like you are a hero.
@@__teles__ how is suggesting that any and every product should be measured according to environmental degradation, and that this needs to be factored into its cost base, 'totalitarian'? Mr Friedman himself was in favour of that idea, he said so very clearly in a discussion in the mid-1970s after catalytic converters became enforceable on new cars. If we don't fix this problem, you know what's coming don't you? Real hell, and you're a fool if you don't think that could give rise to another, more dangerous and intelligent Trump (or you know which other politicians of the past), who will suggest exterminating some to save the others.
Why doesn't a government have responsibility if it can have actions? Isn't responsibility for the consequences of one's actions?
Because it is the people that elected the government. You cannot say that some mechanism is responsible when the root cause is the people that created that mechanism. Therefore, the people are responsible.
“Is there one of you who’s going to say you don’t want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he’s had cancer.” Perfection.
Id rather have someone with an education.
Well that was a statement I disagreed with. There are loads of doctors that treat diseases they never had…
It is the lot of the simple man to assume that the work is a zero-sum gain - that one can only benefit if another loses. Capitalism, infact allows for both parties to gain mutual benefit.
Silphras - uhhah...
Unfortunately, this is in fact a myth.
Economics is actually, factually, and indisputably a zero-sum game. Just because there are losers doesn't mean there are winners. And just because there are winners means there are losers. Its hard to fathom, but what it really means is that we are far from the "economical peak"... that there is still plenty of room to grow, but it is still a finite cap, and certainly not an infinite peak.
Because even something as straight-cut as mining, means you are using a limited resource. So while there are no losers, and win-win situations, it does mean you're "borrowing from the future" as you prevent future generations to mine those resources. This applies to both goods and services. There's a brilliant quote which touches on this: only a fool, or an economist, can think something infinite can come out of something finite (the Earth).
There are other myths that Milton Friedman has spread, and has been misinterpreted by many. However, I still admire the man: he has wisdom, integrity and humanity. And if he had controlled the USA laws/economy, he would find out the shortcomings of his ideas, and would be the first to admit his fault, and work diligently to improve conditions. Because evidently this was his passion. He would undeniably have moved further from the Chicago School towards the Austrian School of Thought in Economics (free market of ideas, where the most accurate ones win out over time).
Sil, I have long argued that capitalism is a formula. Plunk in variables, it spits out results sorta like a calculator. Capitalism has no morals, no values. Only people can input that into the calculations. But man is not a noble creature by & large. Our history is written mostly in blood. The results are evident throughout the world. I call that economy, Crapitalism.
Is there better? Yes, but it is practiced in small groups, mostly bonded through a common faith as are the Hutterites (communists in the original sense). The rest is a tale told by madmen like Lenin & Mao & Ho & PolPot.
There are intentional communities by the score. They rise & fall like an orgasm. One of the best overall study of such communities has to be K. Rexroth's gem, Communalism. It's available free online at--
www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/communalism.htm
Enjoy! I sure did.
I'd refrain from saying "capitalism", instead opting for "free and fair trade" since that is what's happening - you're trading one good for another and both parties believe they are gaining the same value.
I'm picky this time because there are some forms of capitalism that's not exactly beneficial, e.g. crony capitalism
@@ekinteko capitalism is not a zero sum game, you must be severely mentally challenged to believe that.
the wealth transfer happens because of trade, and in a trade, two parties agree and consent to trade something, when you buy an iphone it's because an iphone for you is worth more than the money you spent for it and apple sells that iphone because money are worth more than the product they create.
capitalism is always a win-win, that's how trading works otherwise you don't trade if you don't like the terms.
The great lie of a 'free' market. As if there was ever such a market.
Exactly. It's only free for capital and never for labor.
Milton is wrong about the freedom of markets being the key driver of unemployment. Markets were free long before the late-1800s/early-1900s. Yet we didn't see massive declines in poverty continuously throughout that time. Poverty decreases through technology and efficiency gains. Industrialization drove down poverty in Milton's cited period. It did so in free markets then. It did so in less free markets then. The internet, upgrades in shipping, agriculture, etc. All these gains led to bigger yields, more supply, and the reduction in cost-of-living. This is what drives down the poverty. Free markets can help increase movement of capital, but they also can exacerbate externalities that harm other industries or consumers. Cheap consumer products can harm water systems, which hurt agriculture and aquaculture. Over-fishing can harm ecosystems, which hurts tourism. Power generation can also have adverse effects on the ecosystem, which drives up medical care costs - hurting consumers. There is no free lunch. And what's true of bad government applies to bad business. Not all bad business nor bad governments fail, but it is our duty as people to see that they do.
This was really well put! Another thing that also contributes to societal issues is how bad aspects of society from poorer areas of a country have a profound effect on the next generation. Children that grow up in such areas are less likely to succeed, not because they don’t want to, but because failings in society push more towards failure. Do correct me if I’m wrong.
So Industrial Revolution wasn’t because of a free market?.....I’ll wait
@@dp6297 I would encourage anyone with this sentiment to read up on the industrialization of markets that were less free. Industrialization is about innovation and investment. The freedom of the marketplace is only tangentially related to how those transformations went. And not always in the way we might expect. Consider plant owners in Russia who didn't invest in steam engines because of cheap labor/overhead. Or Japanese factories in glass, cement, silk, brewing, etc that owe their existence to government investment.
Nikola Tesla So you are making the case that a totalitarian government is just as responsible for the economic and technological advancement of the industrial revolution? Just want to clarify
@@dp6297 I'm stating innovation and investment are the primary drivers of the industrialization. And they occur in all market systems.
Honest question: weren’t the 1890s-1910s (his perfect time) the same period of the birth of unions in the US to protect workers who were overworked and underpaid, in unsafe environments (because it made more profit)???
Substitute "organized crime" everywhere you see the term "labor union."
@@WeighedWilson I’m sure the women who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist fire might find your blanket statement dismissive of how many bosses (not all) repeatedly treated their employees like tools or meat. What’s your solution for that? Or do you think we should do away with unions and reinstate locks on the factory floor doors?
Thoams Sowell has also documented this point: When Democrats first enacted a federal minimum wage, black teen unemployment rose sharply.
Friedman is light years ahead of anybody in economics and his communication skills. He has the ability to make the complex easy to understand.
Wait until you listen to Thomas Sowell...
Mises
Its shocking how articulate and civil the student asking the question is. It makes me feel like the quality of college students is dropping...
What shocking is how many people in the comments are pointing this out. It's so plain to see that civil discussion is all but dead. It's crazy to think that it's crazy to see two sides who respectfully disagree.
You can witness this at any college in America, and of course when this lecture was given there were plenty of riotous students getting shot at Kent State.
Perhaps re-examine the prior assumptions.
It is!
They would pepper spray Milton today and chant during his talks. Thankfully this is on youtube for people to learn.
Milton Friedman was the best. I loved the book he and his wife wrote, "Free to Choose: A Personal Statement".
He implicitly establishes a causal relationship between free market and reduction of poverty in reference to the USA of the 18th and 19th century. Apart from the fact that there is no empirical evidence to back this up he is ignoring (i) the free labor (slavery) and (ii) the free natural resources (that were unexploited or taken from the natives by force) that this "free" market was based on. And by the way, these resources were free for the traders and businessmen because of government intervention in Africa and America (ie colonization). So yes, a free market system can reduce poverty among a certain group of people when other groups of people are being enslaved or wiped out or generally milked to death... by the government.
How come this same reduction of poverty was not observed to such an extent in other countries on the continent of America? They all had resources. Plus, slavery was only a thing in the south of the USA. Why did the USA have 1/4th of World GDP by 1914? Why didn't any of the other American countries which also started from virgin lands, follow suit?
"So far as poverty is concerned, there has never in history been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free enterprise system and the free market." I can't get enough of hearing him say that. 🙌
I would say it's more related to giving women control over their capacity to reproduce
Britain had free enterprise since the 1600s. The time he cited (1850-1910) was so good because of industrialisation, not free enterprise. I don't understand how he was allowed to get away with saying that. What a grifter.
@@zander1011011 What can be deemed as "free enterprise" really is as old as human civilization itself. I'm sure it was a good combo of the two.
Are we still referring to the "free market" that led to the 1%ters owning 87% of the world's wealth?
@@emilemilio3344 He addresses inequality and why it's a bad metric for assessing living standards in other presentations. But a lot of inquality has more to do with government interference than with truly free trade. As he even says in this video, "the real causes of poverty and denial of freedom are results of government action and would be eliminated if you eliminated the bad government failures."
"How many of you have worked a $12 hour day and gotten paid 78 cents?"
Andrea Mendenhall I don't think anyone is talking about what people can do as individuals to buy houses. We are talking about noticable measurable discrepancies in home ownership among the citizens of our country as a whole. Taking your advice about marketing and degrees etc, if there are other factors that are serving as obstacles to the goal, you would expect reasonably that less people will be successful in achieving the goal of buying a house. We are talking about the possibility of those other obstacles. The newer generation didn't come from Mars, they were born on this planet as the sons and daughters of people like you. They didn't just magically lose these abilities. They have them same abilities and skills as the previous generations. In fact, I'm willing to bet that they have more of it than the previous generations. There was a time in this country where you could own a house on a single blue collar salary. Where was the educational and marketing then? There's nothing wrong with your advice though, it's just too narrowly focused to have any real affect on a much larger and much more complex problem
I was a high school dropout. Got a GED and went to work fulltime at age 18. Had already worked part-time from age 14. I had no college. I learned a skill by on the job training. I retired at age 47 and the only college courses I had were taken in the last 5 years, just for fun. Based upon my experiences, I believe we need fewer colleges and more trade schools. I also do not believe in government student loans. We need to change the whole concept of "higher education". People who need a loan to attend school should, like everywhere else in life, apply for a loan at a bank. Students may have to work 3 or 4 years out of high school to get a credit score for a loan, but that in itself would get rid of a lot of the bullsh()*&t degrees. When a student has to actually hold a job to earn money for school the problems like Evergreen College will end. No one will scrimp and save to take a course in "Afro-Gender Ethics of 19th Century Belgium".
It's strange that he first says that minimum wage is a bad thing and causes poverty but then he recounts being in poverty as he worked 12 hours for next to no return.
@@SteveeSmith Why is that strange? He wasn't complaining - just explaining. He didn't say that the government should have forced them to pay him more. And he got on-the-job training so that he'd be worth more going forward.
skivosa not me
This type of dialogue is dead on college campuses in 2020. Crazy to see an entire room disagree and remain respectful.
Judging by applause the room seemed to be about 50-50 which is awesome. It sucks that most debates today seem to be in a place that's heavily steeped on one side or the other.
Thought it was just me.
Ben Franklin said, “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Just a reminder
“The government doesn’t have responsibility” 😂 lost me after his first sentence. Our government has a huge amount of responsibility, focusing on the individuals that make up a/our government doesn’t dissolve a government of all its responsibilities.
People are asking why don't we have the decorum nowadays as we did when this video was recorded? The answer is quite simple, we as a society, government and educational institution have changed the Standard. When standards are changed and new types of decorum are allowed in all of these facets we shouldn't then wonder why we have the outcomes that we do. Back then that type of behavior wasn't put up with and was looked down upon. Wasn't because people were self absorbed bigots. It was that there was no need to act in a manner just to try to get your way or voice heard and when you didn't get the answer you wanted you weren't supposed to kick and scream like a 2 year old that won't accept their way not being tended to as if that type of behavior is acceptable to get it. Once we allowed that behavior to be ok in our homes, schools etc. We lost the fundamental essence of proper communication. Life is filled with answers that we don't like, but there answers. So no need to keep asking the questions that you can't accept the answers to just to see if the answer will suddenly change to fit your agenda. The more we learn from scholars like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell who put forth the factual research to find the correct answers rather then the answers we may want, may we truly begin to solve the issues that we have.✌🏾🇺🇲
the level of respect amongst people who come to 'the problem' from alternate sides is refreshing and inspiring.
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
NO- its NOT the free market economy- its afordable quality education that can lift the people out of poverty.
"Have you ever been poor?"....coming from a Stanford student.
@@connerbarnes8428 is it right to assume from your comment that you believe that when people equalize opportunities it will result in a comparable equality of outcomes?
... Who probably votes for a millionaire
Dr. Friedman was a boss.
His free market policies decemated our manufacturing base.
@Joyne Freedom Your mama gave birth to a minimum wage brain. Then she sent you to a school for stupid people where you earned a diploma in stupidity.
That guy asking ironically if Friedman has ever been poor, the man grew up during the great depression lol.
Most everyone did. That’s what’s so hilarious. Jamie Johnson III the heir to Johnson and Johnson wouldn’t speak to college kids unless one of them had been sentenced to public service.
Here’s the real hilarious part about Milton Friedman… He seems to believe that he made it through the great depression just by Cher well alone as opposed to the new deal policies that actually helped poor Americans like his immigrant parents survive. Without those programs? That little bald bespectacled smug midget would’ve died in the gutter.
People have responsibility!!! It seems that has been forgotten today!!
We can't forget about the people who can't help themselves. Since our families are breaking down more responsibity falls on Gov't to assist people.
He didn’t really answer the question: what should the government do about people who are poor, and does the government have a responsibility to them? Just basically said how great capitalism is and why those people aren’t really poor. Would have preferred to hear some specifics about the role of government
You don't hear that. Maybe some talk about how well private charity worked.
The problem with stating "other countries" when it comes to poverty is there's bottom floor for each of those countries and they differ from each other.
One country's poor is another's middle class and is another's wealthy. We need to address poverty in our country alone and stop comparing it elsewhere.
Most people don't care that they are better off than 99% of people, when they can't afford groceries and rent where they live. That's becoming more common.
42 years later, his points on government programs and poor people are still extremely relevant today.
This is extremely evident when you look at the growing homeless crisis in all of the coastal cities who are very far left leaning. Why don't you see the same in places that are centrist or right leaning? The results are overwhelmingly consistent.
@@jasondashney I would love to see some data that actually backs up what you say. Because from what I’ve read and come to understand? Poverty is extremely high in the centrist and right leaning states. So much to the point that they need federal aid from the very left leaning states that you’re attempting to demonize.
So many extremists in the comments section, with the arguments being between democratic socialists and hardcore libertarians. There is a spectrum and you can be inbetween those views, advocating for capitalism with some intervention and public welfare, I don't know why the more moderate views aren't here despite being probably being the most common among the general populace.
"advocating for capitalism with some intervention"
You can't though. True capitalism does not have intervention. To add intervention is to destroy it.
No No "NO TRUE CAPITALIST WOULD DO SUCH A THING"! Look up No true scotsman. It's not all or nothing there are moderate views one could hold. Using your logic a person could only be a lassez-faire capitalist or a socialist, even if they still believe goods should be traded for profit.
I did not say "no true capitalist would do such a thing". I said that true capitalism does not have intervention. In doing so I did not commit the No True Scotsman. Capitalism has a definition, intervention cannot exist according to that definition. By stating "true capitalism" I was referring to capitalism as it is defined, ergo excluding theories such as 'welfare capitalism' and mercantilism which are distinctly different from capitalism.
By "advocating for capitalism with some intervention" you are not advocating for capitalism, but rather a system which borrows from capitalism. A welfare capitalist is a welfare capitalist, they are not a capitalist. The two systems, while sharing the title "capitalist", are not one in the same, and as such should be treated differently.
If someone claimed they were "advocating for capitalism with social welfare programs" I would tell them that they are not advocating capitalism, that they are instead advocating welfare capitalism. The two systems are different, to treat them as the same is ridiculous.
No No Well sure that's a given but it's still a variation of capitalism. The definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Even a mixed economy would still have a majority of goods under private ownership and that this would still be "inbetween" laissez faire and socialism would it not?
Your own definitions works against you.
Capitalism = A system in when a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Mixed Economy = Majority of goods under private ownership.
Ergo, a mixed economy would not be a capitalist economy, as there are goods that are not under private ownership.
Just because something is related to capitalism, does not mean it is capitalism.
I'm from the UK where our minimum wage was introduced after it was in the US (shocking, really, since we Brits are usually more progressive and compassionate that the Americans!). Min wage has lifted so many people out of extreme poverty, and even Freidrich Hayek, a diehard classical and economic liberal, was in favour of min wage.
All employers don't offer on the job training to everyone...
He said that the welfare state produces poor people. I'm British, so I don't know much about the American welfare system and the conditions of the people that preceded it, but my word would the poor, shoeless, cold, starving families in Britain who were given a decent standard of living precisely because of the welfare state (which was introduced post-war when the country was absolutely broke) have something to say about that.
Hear hear
how many of them get off welfare and better themselves? Welfare in Britain is appalling. So is the social system in general. Single moms making more per year than tradesmen lmao.
Shut up you limey, are you proud that people in your country can be on the dole forever?
This should be required watching for all students in all schools. In fact Milton's talks should all be a part of every public school's curriculum.
And we should have special Milton Friedman classes every now and then and be tested on Friedman's monetary policy every week so as to not forget what he's done.
Yes by all means let’s teach the theories of Milton Friedman and his little fantasies about the free market and competition and how it will somehow magically lead to greater freedom and liberty for all when in reality all it has done is grant greater capital power to the few and subjugated the rest. Jesus H Christ have you people learned nothing about how this man’s theories actually led to socioeconomic decay…?
🤦🏻♂️
I think it's amazing that Friedman as usual said nothing substantial or factual and people still say he's profound or intelligent.
He's profound, if you can't see that you may need examination
@@thehorde4868 profound at brainwashing and being a puppet for the rich.
@@zeyadsaeed9580Right, talking from the dummy with the IPhone, in case you don't realize, dummy.
You Americans are the rich compared to the rest of the world. Now give me all of your property in the name of global social justice.
What? Not into it anymore?
@@markarmage3776 why give you anything, dear? Are you having trouble making ends meet in your country?
This is the first time I ever heard Milton Friedman speak. He was brilliant, concise, to the point, and he was right.
It is disappointing that, at least in this clip, Friedman did not actually answer the question.
no one owes the "poor" anything. the ones we have an obligation to help are the roughly 10% of the people who mentally unable to support themselves.
sorry, that is not what Friedman means according to the video. What he means is the responsibility is for all of the population, the you and I, but not the government, and he claims that the means to fulfill the responsibility is the free enterprise system which he claims that has contributed to the uplifting from poverty to a great extent, and attribute the remaining huge poverty to the government. Personally I do not agree with that, but no one is responsible for the poverty is not what he is expressing in the video.
The worst thing about America is that people are proud of suffering. I grew up in poverty and it shouldn't have been possible. My mother worked six days a week and we could barely afford to keep a roof over our heads. The cost of life goes up in this country and our government does nothing about it. Families sacrificed on the altar of laissez-faire capitalism.
Capitalism did not make that happen. Socialist government policies did.
"Employers are forced to discriminate against black people because theyre forced to pay them the same wages as white people"? Did I get that right?
No you didn't get it right. He's referring to entry level positions.
@@paulcollopy4043 Milton's min wage argument is that employers have to discriminate against black workers because theyre forced to pay them the same wages. They would hire them, if they could underpay them. As for the entry lvl positions argument, it doesnt work when a minimum wage 30 years ago could get you more than a minimum wage today. Wages need to adjust for cost of living, which is what we dont have today.
The cancer line was flawless at that specific moment.
The fundamental difference between "left" and "right" thinking in the US is, generally speaking, collectivism vs individualism respectively.
Nice talking with you as well.
Peace right back at ya!
Yes. This is the crux of it. Individuals are real and groups (group identities) are abstractions. Treating abstractions as real entities leads to absurd conclusions and, as Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
What responsibility do the poor have to the rest of society? How are they held to account for this? If we all owe each other a duty of care, then so do the poor. If I don't pay my taxes I go to jail. What happens to the poor when they don't pay their fair share?
all what he said is literally relevant today
I love it how he quotes Kennedy, a Harvard ponce rich boy
Living standards rose more between World War II and today, a period in which advanced economies have been organized as hybrid socialist-capitalist systems. Go to the World Bank web site, look up which countries have the highest public expenditures (% GDP) and which have the lowest.
The cancer analogy was brilliant. We need more public thinkers like him today.
It was quite entertaining and a nice metaphor, though I suppose it could be argued that a doctor treats cancer with science and Friedman is at best trying to treat poverty with ideals
Thomas Sowell
It's a great soundbite but it's also somewhat nonsense. In almost every workplace you'll find higher-ups that try and tell the rank and file how to do things, and they make rules for the rank and file that make no sense because they themselves don't know how to do that job. If you don't have experience doing what I'm doing, then it's likely you're telling me how to do it wrong. It reminds me of the expression "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
@@GalryZ Thomas Sowell was a student of Miltons. He's still graduated a full-blown Marxist. Friedman did not convince him. What eventually convinced Thomas was seeing how the leftists operate in the real world.
@@jasondashney
Going into comments to blurt out either horrible opinions or widely known facts...
You are not special. Please go away.
I saw a 2020 remake of this, there was shouting, calling someone a racist, and heckling
I love reading these comments-- so funny. Everyone's an expert, yet no one knows what the fuck they're talking about.
6. Working 12 hours for 78 cents is not a badge of honor; it's disgusting and only proves my point that if not regulated, big business will take advantage any and every way they can. Oh wait, did they give him job training? 7. The argument that the poor are better off than the average person in Russia is . . . I can't even answer this one it's so ridiculous.
Yes, they did, little kid. They did give him on the job training, the first training he got is to get better so that he never have to work at that place again.
Does that hurt your little feelings?
Human labour doesn't have a minimum value, because it doesn't produce any kind of minimum value product.
Go learn some math and spare the employers of your incompetence.
He overlooks the fact that improvements to the welfare of working people were not the consequence of the free market, they were the consequence of unionization, which worked against those corporate interests who sought to keep labor costs down. There has never been a true free market, here or anywhere, in all of history.
And that just keeps more people unemployed.
@@meeraj-4774 Everyone could be employed if wages were absolute garbage. Do we want maximum employment or for people to have the best jobs possible?
@@someonenotnoone free market takes away that decision from you and gives it to the invisible hand. The decision being do we want more jobs or better wages meaning do we want a minority of unemployed people to be really poor or a majority of emplyed people to be able to provide to themselves without being well off nor poor
@@eliaschlela1975 "invisible hand" is a euphemism for "what people with money want." There's nothing free about "do what I want or starve." Without democratic or equitable access to the underlying natural resources or value thereof, there is no free market. Capricious finders keepers rules applied to such scarce resources does not make a free market.
@@someonenotnoone it s easier for people with money to influence the governement than to influence the invisble hand of the market. The only true democratic economic system is free market since consumers vote with money traded for goods and services.
Access to natural ressources should be equal to all but finding the ressource takes labor and time the finder of the ressource should be able to keep it or there would be no incentive to find any ressource or value. Equal opportunity is key. Other system wil result in "do what i want and starve".
The representation of the left as compassionate and the right as heartless is a false dichotomy. The left feels (some sincerely) for the poor but resolves to aid them with other people's money, by compulsion by the state, under threat of fines, guns and prison; what kind of compassion is that? Easy, it isn't at all. The private sector has charity and it is quite vibrant. If you feel your heart strings pulled for people, get off your ass and go help people, not demand that somebody else with guns force everyone to cough up money, to sieve it through an inefficient bureaucracy and create a dependent population. This system is ultimately cultivated to create a cycle of dependency and obligation leading to votes to maintain that order. And if you want to know, yes, I do volunteer work, in fact I was a volunteer for a charity for two years, full time.
charity is putting band aids on a cancer patient. Charity just absolves you of all guilt of living in a capitalist society that exploits the people you give charity to. In reality charity is bad.
Cory Clark [In reality charity is bad.] Yes only "charity" or theft by government can be good.
The lefts' compassion only exist in the minds of people that haven't seen their cities. I would love to ask young men in chicago and detroit how that compassion is working for them.
Such a good response to the have you ever been poor question!
Government has responsibility for several things, like making laws,and setting up courts etc, he said it has none.
How's free market doing now, Mr Friedman? Government should represent people's interests and not corporate malevolent interests. Highly unemployment rates and homelessness and still growing. Thanks to free market.
It's not a free market...
You're delusional and you're as sure that free market works as the communists were about their system. Open you're eyes.
You're just repeating someone else's speech. Free Market works, of course, but for big corporations. I have been living here for 12 years now and all I see is the impoverishment of the American people.
Ok Julie, I am very appreciative of your opinion and I respect it. Saying that this is not result of free market is just one part. Please, in your opinion, what is it then that is taking American economy down the tubes?
Unless you believe everything is working just fine.
Murderers kill other people because it makes sense to them. Companies exploit employees because it makes sense to them. Btw, unemployment rate is just the way corporations want it to be, because it makes sense to them. People have no control over it and besides that they believe everything is ok.
“How many of you worked a 12 hour shift and got paid .78 cents?” Woooww What a burn 🔥
Thats nothing, have he worked and didn't get pay at all " slavery"
@@pedrorodriguez2129 Which slaves are you talking about? The Chinese slaves, Slav slaves, Jew slaves, African slaves, American slaves?
The only time I’ve ever heard a white person use the word ‘negro’ while sincerely making a point for the benefit of African Americans.
Great answer, great video, great economist.
Slick talking dude. Heard many like him in raising. He really makes it sound so easy. Government is owned by the corporation and his propaganda is meant for the working class to accept being poor is just part of life in a free county.
"Government doesn't have responsibility, people have responsibility."
Government is made of people voted by people, so Government has responsibility.
He's a hell of a salesman for keeping the upper class rich.
Ah, so you are envious and want to tear down those better off than you are. Jealousy is ugly.
@@ronantheronin3521 Nope. Nothing wrong with some people having more money than others. Try again.
Enforced minimum wage, far more than automation as often alleged, have single-handedly eliminated entry level and non-skill jobs, where otherwise the average high school and college student would be partly or fully employed. Concurrently, subsidization of various sorts have disincentivized the same average student from seeking out the remaining jobs not destroyed by enforced minimum wage.
Additionally, Milton Friedman today would have been shouted down inside the lecture hall while mayhem erupts outside the lecture hall, followed online by punctuated dislikes, slanderous comments, social cancellation even professional ruination.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Oh my. Mr. Milton reminds me of my newspaper bike delivery at twelve, which was legal for $20 a month (rain or shine, 5:00 am weekends and after school ). Funny, I felt empowered to bring some support to my family.
Interesting point. Not all jobs empower individuals or provide some kind of stepping stone to bigger opportunities. You have successfully challenged my preconceptions on the subject.
@@stephenpaul7499 I would read the Register
every day helped me improve my English, and it helped me to think critically because some of the stories I read were inspiring and gave me strength to improve my life.
45 years later and median incomes have steadily declined, education rates have declined while getting much more expensive, housing costs have skyrocketed (with some old fashioned price fixing to boot!), and wealth has concentrated even more at the top as countries like China and India out pace the USA in growth. The free market types have been proven utterly wrong as the advance of technology has made most human labor superfluous, and the labor still needed can be supplied by 3rd world countries that undercut American wages.
All you need as the ultimate repudiation of what was said in this video is the overwhelming current support for Trump on the right, with his government policies aimed at curbing the excesses of the free market regarding the outsourcing or insourcing of cheap labor.
Also, Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark are significantly better on quality of life for their citizens than the USA, thanks to a government formed around direct investments in the population.
Hayek & Friedman are my heroes.