This man guidance made my country Chile to go from one of the poorest countries in South America, into one of the wealthiest in the region. For ever thankful.
I think the people of Chile had enough brains to deal with his guidance. For example the same guidance from "Chicago's boys" has failed in post-soviet Russia.
+alex cody Given the general reception of those who lean toward the right on college campuses, I think one could imagine a scenario in which Friedman is unwelcome.
+Jordan Rodriguez Friedman emphasized theory because once put in practice as public policy his Monetarist doctrine spelled disaster. So as your post suggests, we are more likely to understand Milton's aims if we ignore the theory and mute the chatter long enough to examine the results. What we live by are dreams but what we are forced to live with are the social outcomes of those dreams.
+gary morrison Sorry dude, but "The PURSUIT of happiness" is not the same thing as "GUARANTEED happiness". Many achieve their dreams, many not. I can live with the fact that at least I tried my best. Or like Michael Jordan once said, "I can accept failure, what I cannot accept is not trying". The individual is the only one who can lift himself out of poverty and the ineptitude of government has shown how to make a living out of the poverty victimization card.
It was a function of Government investment that enabled the economic boom following WWll. This period of general prosperity however, was coming to an end by the early-70's. The outcome of the Reagan/ Friedman economic policy regime that followed nearly a decade later, resulted in massive unemployment, exacerbated by high interest rates, ultimately leading to the deindustrialization and disastrous financialization of the US economy Another outcome of Milton Friedman's advice, was the imposition of neoclassical and free-market policies that produced a massive transfer of wealth from the lower third of income distribution, primarily into the pockets of the wealthiest 5% at the top, The so called "free-market" proved just another kind of planned economy calling for an authoritarian takeover of public institutions and the redistribution of public assets into the hands of the already rich; See also, Austerity, Privatization, Structural Adjustment and Friedman/ Pinochet.
gary morrison "decade later, resulted in massive unemployment, " yes it did! 1980 unemployment was 7.1% Reagan left office in 1989 unemployment was at 5.3% Dec 1980: Interest Rates hit record high of 21.5% Reagan entered office in 1981 he left with rates at 10% "a massive transfer of wealth from the lower third of income distribution," So they taxed the lower class and gave welfare checks, food stamps, to the rich? Or did the whole economy expand? Yep, the economy grew. It is almost always the correct move to limit government institutions in favor of private ones. Also, if you want dictators, there is no faster way to get one than to have a socialist leader.
People say Capitalism is inequality, when we saw the facts in Soviet Union, where you could buy a car, if you were a member of Polit-Bureau. If you weren't, you had no chance. That was a fact and this is almost the same in the post Soviet Republics unfortunatelly.
Just because there was inequality in Soviet-style authoritarian socialism doesn't mean there isn't inequality in US-style free-market capitalism. Can you buy sports cars? Can you buy mansions in opulent areas? Are there things you cannot buy due to your current position in the social heirachy? If the answer to those questions is yes, as I suspect it is, then inequality exists between the ruling elite and the common man, I.e, you. This inequality isn't deserved, either. CEOs often earn over 300 times the annual wages of their employees. Can you honestly say that those CEOs do 300 times the work, work 300 times a hard, and, therefore, deserve their bat concentration of wealth? Social and economic inequality under both socialism and capitalism must be expunged.
+SirSoz I see, you can't get absolutely equal community, which has everything it needs. Yeah even today is inequality according to worth and wealth, but each people are equal under the law in USA. We can't provide an ideal conditions in society, but there were and here are still people in my country, who don't care about any tenets, break the law and do everything they want, cause of their posts. That's what i don't like in communism and this sittuation is an echo of communism.
+SirSoz how many people are capable of doing that CEOs job? and now many are for doing the regular jobs? what is the responsibility in the hands of the CEO? so, YOUR values are ought to judge the value of someone's work? that's a very dictatorial idea in principle. socialism is definitely the ideology of envy disguised in fairness.
@@SirSoz value is not work done its the use of that work as the freely expressed individuals who part with their property in the form of money determine it to be.
By listening to Friedman, and Sowell, it seems clear that economics at its heart, is a factor of what actually works. It’s dispassionate. One must look at the results.
You know, over the years I wanted to DISLIKE Professor Friedmans Ideology. That is when I realized I Couldn't HANDLE THE TRUTH! I saw myself as a " seeker of the Truth " when in reality I am simply Petty. This is an Absolutely Intriguing topic.....Thank you for Posting this Video. 🎸💚
His interpretation of the relationship between system and morality stun me. I have never thought things in this way. System has no meaning, moral values are subjective, it is only through free market to decide the collective moral standards of the majority..... My god, that shapes my new world......
It's up to the people from their cultural values through the politicans and the legal system/legislature that shapes collective moral standards not by implementing economically ignorant, totalitarian ,pseudo-scientific ,moralizing ideology aka socialism and fascism.
06:52 The crowd is clueless and does not get the joke about every men getting one house and then two men who will be his servants. That would yield something infinitely repetitive and therefore unsustainable.
just like the Freud death wish example, another analogy I think of when comparing capitalism to socialism is : you have to love (aka take care of) yourself as an individual before you can even think of being ABLE to help the next person. This is why charitable giving and generosity flow much more freely in a capitalist nation than one of collectivism.
If only people would take what they need, that theory works. But people at the top take much more than they need. Charity tries to ameliorate the need at the bottom, but there's just too much greed. Reminds me of The Platform.
The problem now is that the average american thinks Sweden is socialist and america is very capitalist.. Sweden is actually more capitalist than the US, but has a larger welfare state. The US is a mixed market economy. We are burdened with social programs, government regulations, and corporatism. This is not true capitalism. So the perception of capitalism is obfuscated to Americans. We think our problems stem from capitalism when it actually stems from government intervention.
We live by are dreams but what we are forced to live with are the social outcomes of those dreams. RESULTS! Not intentions, you are correct and Milton thanks large!
@Friedstuffsable You are right about one thing - US public education is a perfect example of collectivism which is why it is such an unmitigated disaster, why even more socialistic countries adopt school choice and why private schools with entirely comparable student bodies outperform public schools by several orders of magnitude and at lower cost.
Loving the doublethink there. Liberalism, a political ideology enforcing individualism, has been said to "make selfishness a virtue". How is working for the benefit of others, and others working for the benefit of you, selfish? It is selflessness in its most pure form. Individualism is the selfish one - you benefit at the cost of everyone else. There can only ever be a minority of winners, and a majority of losers. This would be fine if the system was meritocratic, but as it isn't (due to greater opportunities that the rich possess). So a disproportionate amount of people who do not deserve to get ahead succeed, and the people at the bottom, already disadvantaged, fall deep into poverty. Tell me, which belief is the selfish one.
+SirSoz Voluntarily working for the benefits of others is great and certainly not selfish. This is what every person has to do in capitalism - in order for you to eat, *others* have to benefit first by buying your stuff. Forcing other people to work for your benefit, and believing you have the right to force them just because you were born (which is the essence of any redistribution scheme, including socialism) is very selfish.
+SirSoz ''Liberalism, a political ideology enforcing individualism, has been said to "make selfishness a virtue". '' The key word is enforcing. It's the opposite of liberalism.
+SirSoz "you benefit at the cost of everyone else" This is collectivism you're describing here. You think people in labor camps work for their own benefit?
+rtcell +rtcell Capitalism doesn't involve the voluntary working for others. Capitalism has created a situation, through the unequal possession of wealth and private ownership of the means of production, where the poor must sell the only valuable thing they possess, their labour power, in order to avoid starvation. It is the equivalent of a doctor poisoning a man and his family, and offering them a cure for £1 million a pill. Is this a fair choice? No, of course not, because the situation has been created, and the choice is constrained by the threat of death. Choices cannot be free and voluntary if they are constrained by the threat of death, if a choice isn't made. To participate in such a system by paying workers as little as possible so that your rate of profit can rise (which all capitalists must do to remain competitive), IS selfish, as you are putting your own personal happiness above the happiness of multitudes.
You know what strikes me watching this? That Friedman would NOT be allowed to have speeches or conduct Q and A at most college campuses today. How sad is that? This crowd is listening intently and politely. Today there would be someone screaming and cursing and pointing and whatever other sad, childish display. I now think colleges should be shut down and should be started anew with strict guidelines of no safe spaces and dissent and discussion is our LIFEBLOOD.
Collectivism when initiated by the government almost always resorts in coercion which robs individuals of their free-will and saps human dignity. When individuals work together in corporations they do so out of their own choice. However collectivism brought about by the government leaves people with no choice. You also have to remember that although those business may have to work together collectively, they nonetheless aim to shine as individuals in their own right.
One of the great books on this issue is the book "Out of Step," the autobiography of the individualist philosopher Frank Chodorov. What makes Chodorov's analysis superior to that of von Mises and others who consider themselves libertarians is his recognition that there is a just distinction between those produced, tangible assets rightfully considered to be private property versus natural assets the individual control over which is rightfully considered a monopolistic privilege requiring a payment of the market-determined rent to the community. Friedman came close to Chodorov's position by embracing the idea that public revenue is best raised by the taxation of land values, a nod to Henry George.
"I used to believe in socialism, i still do. But socialism is an ideal, we can't have it in the real world until we are rich enough to afford it". This was a genius statement I must say. Living in Sweden I can see this in front of my own eyes. Sweden has had its good times with socialism(they did afford it), but because of it, the glory days are soon over.
3:40 If only the best words to describe what socialism actually is didn't sound so abstract. To exaggerate slightly, though not much, it's like saying the definition of "slaughter" is: "to purposefully deactivate a biological system". The definition should evoke an image comparable to the scenarios they entail, and to those who need to hear it most, they most certainly don't. And so as collectivists are clearly so obsessed with bending the meaning of words to suit their agenda, I think we can at least be given clearence to revolutionise how we speak about these topics and maybe update the standard dictionary definition too. Tell a child that their "parents will control all means of production from now on" and they'll likely shrug their shoulders and say "ok, cool". Only once their parents physically restrict them as they go to say draw a picture, make a lego construction, write poetry etc will they suddenly realise what the "means of production" is. If we were to say instead: "the objects (e.g. tools/materials/equipment) and land with which we require to make things (e.g shoes, jewellery, paintings, music, buildings etc). ... then I think we'd see an immediate decrease in the numbers of teenage communists. But that's only half of it, the other half is with those who can't be changed. I personally beleive that despite there being legitmate weight to much leftwing literature, the movement as a whole since its conception strikes me as simply the natural progression, or the organised political for face for a particular class of individuals. I beleive that a parasite-host synergy is the typical response to the shifting from complete equality to slightly biased. Which is another way of saying, the second someone has something which someone else hasnt got, the other person adapts their behaviour accordingly. Think of how we might answer the phone more to people who are wealthy vs people who probably want something. And then think of how the people who want something answers the phone, either to those wealthier or those with even less then them! I beleive it takes the best of us not to be influenced in such ways. But I still beleive it to be a powerful law of nature, and one that manifests itself in humans wherever differences in wealth occur. People who are comfortable taking from others fraudulently. For this you need to be greedy and/or lazy, lacking in empathy, and driven to do what it takes. Today we use the terms narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy, psychopathy etc. But my point is, is that collectivism (or equity) is the natural manifestation of the fraudulent and parasitic human mind on the intellectual/political stage. It has always been there laying dormant, only now does it have a loud (and cool sounding) voice. For those die-hard collectivists, theres nothing you can do or say to change their mind, and they will happily lie through their teeth in order to maintain thier image.
Yeah, right! :-D ... everyone gets poorer and poorer according to this distributiom model. Nothing can get bigger by divison. End result? Starvation, misery and death. Always. #DeathCult
He's absolutely right about socialism. Its a disaster. But his logic is beyond atrocious. He first suggests that morality is separate to systems of governing. Then at the end, he suggests that capitalism leads to justice. Dumbest fucking logic I've ever heard. Wars for oil profit, Panama Canal, Suez canal, shipping wars, etc. Maybe there is more to this specific speech, but most of his writings are about how great capitalism is. He had it right in the beginning...(Its not great, and its not evil). I would add that its as good as the people it contains.
The free market, when actually free does not cause the crimes you have mentioned. Only when big, corrupt government is involved do those series of events occur.
Slap Stick Economic systems aren't responsible for those crimes, Statist imperialist and political and monetary greed are, states are very greedy whether operating under a capitalist or socialist or whatever economic system, anything that is done through force is not capitalism
+Slap Stick When is the last time a corporation started a war for profit? Last time I checked corporations do not have standing armies. Only governments can start wars for profit
People who don’t produce anything need collectivism. It’s their way of ducking the responsibility of producing something of value that requires a price placed upon it. If you can shirk that then you are free to spout bullshit at everyone else’s cost.
@MaxxTheMerciless cont... This is because when the survival of a nation is at stake, often a nation will appeal to patriotic feeling, the impending threat of the enemy, and other things, which may very well be valid, to motivate the citizenry. Collectivists must use similar language to promote their agendas. Hence the crisis in everything, and only they are there to help. As Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
So laughably pathetic arguments...Less inequality in a society where the 1% owns 50% of the wealth and comparing that to Soviet politburo limos.But this was in the 70s when after years of Keynesian policies(brought about by the existence of the USSR)people were in fact able to believe that capitalism might have something good in store for the "ordinary man".Today the students would be throwing tomatoes at him.
To clarify, a co-op is a specific type of collective. In our example, the factory may be a production co-op. The difference between a collective and a company is that in a collective, the people on the shop floor can fire the president. The advantage of a collective is that it allows people of little wealth to pool resources in order to become competitive in the market place, and thus gain wealth.
Atlas Shrugged has a similar idea: that the core motivation or collectivism is a morality of death. I think it's a cool dramatic idea. But the explanation seems simpler to me, too. I agree with Friedman, even though by another route.
The collective is ultimately defined by the individuals which comprise it. Human beings are not numbers in a state computer... they are individuals, unique and responsible.
@MrSnipsnip007 I apologize for the confusion. Note, I argued that it takes four to six years to be FULLY realized. While other economists would certainly agree that some actions can begin having an impact immediately, none would accept the premise (inherent in the data set broken up by presidential terms) that the full effect is immediate (particularly when their first budget doesn't even begin til October).
02:18 "the emphasis on moral values is almost always on the part of people who do not have economic problems, not on the part of the masses". Masses expand. But wealthy untouched, now saintly
@Zoravar0v0 a CEO is the general manager of all operations. This takes a certain type of person but doesn't necessarily deserve more money. The point is that a workers value should be measured by his knowledge and dedication to a specific job. His value shouldn't be based on a title so therefore all employees who use their talents with equal dedication should all be paid equally. It's a win win for everyone.
@dissimulate666 following your argument; Actors who are highly paid are EXPLOITED by the producers, Highly paid Lawyers are Exploited by the owner of the law firm and other highly paid professionals(workers) are exploited by their employers. I never denied the "value of labor", I just pointed out that labor is just one of the things in the equation, therefore discrediting the LTV and ET. Can things materialize with only labor? or is it because a you worked on something it auto..cont.
It's not my fault that you won't talk to yourself (though calling yourself a clown may be a bit harsh). Nothing I've said is factually assailable or even controversial economically. The text of Glass-Steagall itself supports my position as does the economic analysis avaiable (even the nature and quality of those who claim otherwise). Nothing I've presented is supposition (not even the analysis of the S&L crisis). I am not responsible for your ignorance.
A study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is.When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions,90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender,age,income level,or party affiliation- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth.In fact,the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth
@dtorfleming You make my point for me. Since there WAS mo "massive deregulation"; since repeal of Glass-Steagall changed no banking regulations and had nothing to do with the crisis; since reduction of taxes is never economically harmful and since (excepting recessions) US manufacturing output has continued to grow substantially for decades, not ONE of those non-issues had ANYTHING to do with ANY crisis.
In the USA, socialism became the equivalent of moderate policies in the rest of the world. Things like social democracy and keynesianism are regarded as socialism in the USA.
In former USSR no one hided their wage earning from ordinary worker,including top governmental officials.But in USA every ones income is private.Its the origin of exploitation of man from man,yet the end of exploitation is employee at will doctrine in private enterprise system.
No one hid (if that's even true) their actual wage but Communist officials certainly hid all the stuff they stole and embezzled. The official income of a government official is completely irrelevant when they have the ability to steal from the population at will.
@CollectivePreference I'm not talking about China. And no, they weren't miserable failures - I recently read in the newspaper recently that GDP growth in Sovjet was an average of about 2% pr. year. Many centrally planned projects succeeded in providing clothes, food, housing materials etc. What do you think was produced in those factories that were sold off to Oligarks far below their value under the Yeltsin "anarchy period"? P.S. Look up nestle powdered milk
@theMadMarxist 1)"Something exists" is an objective observation. 2) In the context of morality (virtue of action), sin (transgression of "divine law"[neg.]) and miracle (supernatural events[neutral]) are only contrary in the discussion of subjective preference. 3) Freedom is the capacity of change; It is bound by reference, and is relative, but not necessarily subjective. 4) It is a non-sequitur to value something more than one's values. 5) Choice is the act of discovering and living our values.
I am a Monarchist in the USA but .. I didn't understand that the 'conservative' anti-communist speakers talking about things like public education (especially I'd guess mandatory kind), graduated income tax, etc are all parts of the actual communist manifesto which I was always taught was just a 'pamphlet' as if it's a 2-page brochure.. well they're right around page 27 or something like that on the usual PDF you can find of it on line.. amazing.
The banana industry was never going to disappear. As you have said, the consumer, Australians, paid more for bananas to subsidies the industry. I gave that example because even you cannot deny that somebody was forced to pay more so that somebody else could earn money. In addition, the people who benefited most were not the farmers who were affected by the cyclone, but the farmers who weren't affected. They continued operating, whilst benefiting from government restrictions and lack of supply.
He says morals are an individualistic idea. I disagree. We are taught our morals by our parents, by the societies we live in and by the people and ideas we “collectively” surround ourselves with.
I'd argue that your morals aren't taught, but are shaped by all those things, including the biggest of all: personal experience. You may think that your morals are identical to the people you adopted them from, but it may be in fact that your morals only borrow from those people, but have their own personal nuances that separate them from your parents and many others, making them more individualistic in nature. Ultimately, you will always believe in what you want to believe, and that will always differ from person to person. No two people will agree on everything morally. Conversely, some moral values do exist and are shared in the better interest of humanity as a collective, but if you dig deeper into the details of how one person thinks or feels about a plethora of issues, my argument still stands that you would have a hard time finding two people that will give identical responses to all of it.
The major discovery of Western philosophy in the moral arena was that the individual is the ultimate minority and as such is most deserving of protection against the collective of literally everyone else. First among those moral principles is property rights beginning with yourself, self-ownership. This is why the West came up with ideas like individual rights, the subordination of the government to the governed, governance by consent (democracy and the social contract), innocent until proven guilty etc. and other cultures did not. The simple fact is that basic principles like these led to the freedom that produced the most prosperous nations on earth with the greatest drive towards the protection of the individual the world has ever seen. The West has certainly not been perfect in implementing this but put into perspective it is doing well enough and consistently improving to the point that the violations that do happen seem absolutely outrageous even when they are usually minor compared to much of what happens elsewhere. You are actually using the word collective incorrectly here. Societies are, of course, groups of people taking part in the same social game. Their morals tend to broadly align, as is necessary for the society to be coherent at all, but the more nuance and specifics are added to the case being discussed the more controversy arises, people are not identical in their moral outlook and that is true whether the morals of the society are individualistic or collectivist. When we talk about collectivist or individualistic morals we are talking about the character of the moral systems. Individualistic systems begin with the idea of sovereign individuals and self-ownership and proceed from there, collectivist morals are based on social or economic class, caste or any number of other potential defining characteristics or combinations thereof. In collectivist systems the rules that apply to an individual are determined by the various characteristics possessed by that individual and which group associations come with those and therefore the prescriptions provided may or may not be appropriate to the situation. More critically, the group to which the individuals belong are all that really matters, the individuals do not. Individuals are therefore disposable as the loss of some members of a group will not destroy that group. There are times where collectivism is necessary (war for example, preservation of the society must come before preservation of the individuals), but without exception collectivist approaches to morality result in far more catastrophic results for the individuals than individualistic approaches. This is why systems like communism (collectivist on the basis of class), or fascism (collectivist on the basis of nationality) have such poor records when it comes to the treatment of their people. The mass deaths that result from the implementation of systems like those is a consequence of the collectivist nature of the system, not an anomaly within it. Western moral philosophy is absolutely individualistic in character. So essentially what Friedman is saying here is that collectivist societies are morally bankrupt.
@kamikazee55 Voluntary transactions of privately owned property? In the UK, most of the land was arbitarily doled out centuries ago. Now of course we call it private, yet it is more appropriate to regard it as stolen in this context. I think we can only talk of something as being private when it is earned by legitimate means.
@MrSnipsnip007 The point is, a CEO can double his income by doubling the company's risk. He doesn't share any of the downside. He doesn't have to give back any of his large paycheck if problems arise from his decisions 3 years later. Anybody who talks about the motivations that companies have, like Alan Greenspan's famous speech in which he said he was surprised the banks with their phd's couldn't see the crisis coming, is making a mistake of thinking that companies are individuals.
Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics claimed to have refined and developed modern, scientific tools of ‘free market capitalism’, capable of unlocking ever greater rewards from Adam Smith’s simple, primitive concept of free markets. Monetary Fascism was rapidly adopted because western culture recognizes the tremendous historical contributions of traditional free market capitalism and wanted to participate in the promise of these enhanced rewards.
I clicked on this to get more ideas on collectivism to apply it to the digital collectivist idea. The beginning of his recorded/edited lecture can be directed to a broader audience especially talking about Freud and the death wish. The rest can be accessed through history books.
***** Witness bedrock understanding: For this, we're likely going to need some degree of "re-education", which sounds ominous enough, but is a gross understatement for what it will provide. This part is the difficult part that most people have a hard time grasping. Not for lack of intelligence, but for the previous and intentional mis-education that they were socialized to. "Once you are wet, it's so hard to get dry..." We may not be clear to what your socialization has been, but we'll find out soon enough, won't we? We are going to cover some pretty dense material here, so be ready for some double takes. The learning curve is steep from here on out, so hold on tight: We are going to be using source/proxy constructs whose actual and root definitions are not reflected in standard dictionaries. This has been done to purposely mislead you and I from understanding them accurately. We're going to give the accurate and root definitions at their actual source. When you finally come to see it, it's going to peel away so much for you to find and understand. The best thing is- unfortunately- is that almost everyone can see it if they are willing to just look. It's available to everyone to hear if they be still enough to listen. The current and standard dictionary definitions are proxy and are thus not direct to their source. This is done to keep us from noticing critical items of interest that would render the current State power constructs vulnerable. If one is not sure what they are dealing with, then how can they grasp and articulate it to begin with? So if you really come to understand this, we can then begin to spread this power to change the world for the betterment of everyone. Please be still enough to see and hear this: Individualism vs. Collectivism: Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well? As mentioned, most standard dictionaries intentionally don't include source definitions and instead cite spun political versions as source material when that is simply not so. Let's use the proxy that proceeds the following: (1) Individualism/ Collectivism, (2)Conservative/Liberal, (3) Capitalist/Socialist/Communist, and (4) various parties. (0) Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well?" This precedes any political definition as it encompasses every action in our daily lives regardless of politics. This is fundamental source code. Politics come after. With this, one can see that no matter the race, culture, religion, country or economic/political construct, Individualism (Conservative) is only tolerant of it's likeness where as Collectivism (Liberal) is more or less tolerant of everyone. Individualism- To the Individual self (in) Collectivism- To the Collective (out) Conservative- To Conserve or retain-to the self (in) Liberal- as in Liberty and freedom-for all (out) It is undeniable that Conservative is a proxy to Individualism where as Liberal is a proxy to Collectivism. As Conservatives/Individualists are only tolerant of those of their likeness, they tend to project their Individual ideals over others. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and so on did just that. If it seems confusing, then you are confusing proxies. One can have a Conservative in charge of a Collectivist Construct (Hitler) just a one can have a Liberal in charge of an Individualist Construct (Bill Clinton). But Collectivist constructs only work when Individuals refrain from from projecting their Individual ideals over a Collective whole. Collectivism relies on all Individual participant, not just one Individual projection over a Collective whole. Individualism is the collection of power and energy into densities or Individual points- like money and power, or Dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. where as Collectivism is the dispersal of a power and energy amongst the Collective, like social aid programs or civil rights. What has been kept hidden from everyone are some key fundamental points. There are 3 things in the known universe that mirror pure Individualism: Quantum Singularities(black holes), Cancer and literally Nothing. They all project over a collective, divide and consume, and are only tolerant of their likeness. Every thing else in the known Universe is Collective based. Even families are Collectives, until they are not... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were all Conservatives who helmed Collectivist ideological constructs and intentionally drove those Liberal/Collectivist constructs into the ground to make way for the one that most closely models Individualism: Conservative Capitalism. You thought that Conservative helmed Communism or Socialism was bad- Just wait until The Beast is throned in Conservative Capitalism. It is said that the third time's a real charm ;) You see, money is not the "root" of all evil as it is just a proxy for the source: Individualism. Money does like to collect into densities... Manson, Brevik, McVeigh, and Osama bin Laden all projected their separate, individual ideologies over a Collective to a devastating effect. They were all Conservatives of their respective ideologies. You see, Liberal/Collectivist Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists don't butcher themselves or others, but Conservative ones do. Individualism is the source behind every civilian on civilian crime or mass murder with the "Me First-@#$% Them" mentality it propagates. As we know, Densities gravitate to wards each other and interact until joined or dispersed. Individualism is the source of all sin as corruption begins with the Individual self. People discuss Individual rights sure enough, but if they are given to everyone, then they are actually Collective rights. The reason that no one has ever found solutions is that we've been given proxy definitions and not source definitions. We've all been given a bad map starting in grade school. like this guy in the video here... What I gave voice to cannot be refuted, but only hidden from view for a time. It will always resurface, as it is here and now. It is an ideal, a living construct and likely the strongest and most elegant one we know of. It is powerful and undeniable. And everywhere in our lives. And it has many Names... We've all been raised on stories of the good guy vs. the bad guy. Notice anything interesting about that? In every instance, the good guy sacrificed their individual self for the protection of the Collective whole where as the bad guy was willing to hurt others in projecting their ideals over the Collective? In every story we grew up with, it has been ever present. Even Christ and The Bible are Liberal Collectivist constructs. No where is that shown greater than where Christ sacrificed his Individual self to save the Collective whole. "Where two or more gather in My Name" is a Collective notion, not an Individual one. This is quite telling and gives strong formulaic reference to His existence, even if only as a mental construct or a parable. It's in the source code we discuss here. What is described so far is simply a source definition. Individualism vs. Collectivism: Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well?
In 1910, only a third of non-farm owner-occupied home purchases were mortgaged. The non-farm homeownership rate in 1920 was 41 percent; the homeownership rate of farmers was 58 percent In the 20 years between 1930 to 1950, for the non-farm ownership rate rate to jumped 7 percentage points, from 48 percent to 55 percent.Today it is about 66%
But to save some time, here are some quotes from Riley 2013. "The major macroeconomic effects of protection on a domestic economy are negative" "resources are misallocated because they are directed away from efficient and competitive industries" "Capital resources are also wasted, and the returns to all the factors of production will necessarily be lower" - (in other words, inevitably be lower)
I did not have a "lapse of clarity". What i said was, "Moral and ethical reasons are not sufficient", the key word being sufficient. I did not say that they could not be considered, just that ideals such as freedom or equality cannot be used as absolute evidence for or against something in economics. Often the intent is very different from the results, government housing being a prime example. Of course the freedom of choice is a valid argument, but it is not an end in itself.
Yes, in the examples you list society as a whole cannot be blamed because for the choices of an individual. The extent in which society can be blamed for ill morals would be what was taught in the family and even that cannot prevent the deeds of an individual because it is a choice to adhere to good morals.
Wow...this guys mind. When I saw the video about how immorality is now profitized my mind was blown but this...this is brilliant. And I am a political nerd but never heard of the Russian man he refers to. Thank goodness for Friedman, gunna check that book out
@daPlumber702 Mr. Friedman is the one claiming "expertise". If you disagree with me on some specific point I'd be glad to engage in a lively debate, but not personal attacks.
@fzqlcs I've only read Free to Choose BUT this is from a 1995 interview with Friedman with Reason Magazin. "In Capitalism and Freedom we came out on the side of favoring compulsory schooling and in Free To Choose we came out against it. " I can't post the link but google "milton friedman reason 1995" the interview is titled "Best of Both Worlds"
1921,the program moved to the Commerce Department,where Secretary Herbert Hoover soon became the nation's foremost promoter of home ownership."Maintaining a high percentage of individual home owners is one of the searching tests that now challenge the people of the United States" Hoover wrote in 1925-"The present large proportion of families that own their own homes is both the foundation of a sound economic and social systemand a guarantee that our society will continue to develop rationally"
Of cause there are collective norms and values in a society which are shared but that is in the public sphere. In the private sphere we tend to have more personal "morals" which are individual based on our background and upbringing which may or may not differ from our next door neighbour but are unlikely to be shared by everyone in your society.
@fzqlcs "bussing" was a misquote on my part. I was in class and didn't have the interview on hand. Once again i reiterate because of how harsh you were in your response. I am a free market capitalist Friedman, Rand, Paul libertarian. I am not arguing against Friedman but only in his defense.
If there's one thing I disagree with Friedman is that morals are not subjective to each individual. They are objective. Each individual may determine what morals he follows and how he may apply them to his life, but in truth they know somewhere somehow that he falls short even if he doesn't admit them, even as he refuses to see the truth. They are like laws of nature; they can't be violated, but they can be ignored at one's own peril.
(4) The SEC’s Voluntary Regulation Regime for Investment Banks, 2004-2008 The SEC's Consolidated Supervised Entity (CSE) regime was introduced in 2004. It allowed investment banks to engage in their own net capital requirements in accordance with the standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. It was voluntarily administered, and the result was that investment banks pushed borrowing ratios to as high as 40 to 1, as in the case of Merrill Lynch
Freedom means nothing to a man stranded on a desert island, but thats a philosophical discussion. Even such lofty goals as freedom are viewed differently by different people. On the issue of tariffs, i believe that liberty isn't sufficient to justify a free market. It is an important argument, but it is not an end. If you want louisthegreater to provide evidence for tariffs, then i believe that we should also supply evidence against tariffs, ALONG with the argument for greater individual choice.
So from what Mr. Friedman is saying here, both political parties in this country have tried scocialism in their own way. The Democratic party has tried to equalize economics for the poor and middle class, and the Republican party has tried to equalize economics for the corporations and their wealthy owners. In either case, the politicians create problems for the other party and keep the tug-of-war going to get our votes. Only when we achieve a balance can we have progress.
@FletchforFreedom This is clearly why there appears to be some confusion on your part. I am not talking about the world - in terms of the discussion about land ownership, I am talking about the UK specifically. Not just in size, but land value too, noone comes near the Duke of Westminster either.
Federal support of home ownership began as an extension by corporate interest to try to stop unions to be strong.Their meaned that homeowners ten with mortgage debt don't go on strike.A public-relations campaign dubbed "Own Your Own Home" - originally launched by the National Association of Real Estate Boards in the aftermath of World War I - was taken over by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1917 and became the first federal program explicitly aimed at encouraging home ownership.
@Friedstuffsable As ccg points out, your argument is nonsensical. Whether the issue is roads or the FAA, the fact that the government has instituted a monopoly and offered a service without price (because the cost is covered by taxes) does not indicate a failure of the market or suggest that the private sector could not provide them better and cheaper as has proved the case in schools, health care provision, fire fighting services, postal services, etc.
@authorityblues "workers ownership of production" is not a principle of either form of socialism, in fascism (property rights but no commercial rights, the owners of the businesses and peoples work is allowed, and not taken by the government. in the other form of socialism, communism( no property rights or commercial rights) no ownership is permitted , either by the workers who own factories or the workers who work for them, in both the government controls commerce.
"The degree of social injustice, and torture, and incarceration in a place like Russia is in a different order of magnitude than in the western countries in which we grew up.." That is no argument against socialism sir
@longbow1600 wrong. In Friedman's book capitalism and freedom he argues FOR compulsory bussings to schools. He later decided he was wrong and changes his views to argue for school choice (voucher system)
I never said that inequality was not present. I was only refuting your idea that inequality is a "new phenomenon". It may well be the case that equality has been in decline over the past 30 years, but that does not mean we have the greatest inequality ever known to man today, and it certainly doesn't allow you to conclude that the free market system is to blame.
Collectivism appeals to the lazy man because he is unable to create or do anything for himself and therefore must stand on the backs of others to feel any self worth and survive and have his basic needs provided. Rest assured.... These are the first to die off in any hardship. Darwin will clean this mess up soon enough.
Financial deregulation was a fundamental cause of the crisis in the the US. 2008, we can point to a number of important acts of financial deregulation that were the direct causes of the crisis: 1) Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (1999) In the US, the Glass-Steagall Act, initially created in the wake of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, prohibited banks from both accepting deposits and underwriting securities. This led to segregation of investment banks from commercial banks
@FletchforFreedom It is simply not, and putting the dots together should not be difficult as I have listed comprehensively the names of the chief landowners. The aristocrats below are not 'aristocrats' either - they are blue blooded families that go back a long way. How many acres does Rausing own in the UK by the way?
This man guidance made my country Chile to go from one of the poorest countries in South America, into one of the wealthiest in the region. For ever thankful.
I think the people of Chile had enough brains to deal with his guidance.
For example the same guidance from "Chicago's boys" has failed in post-soviet Russia.
TyyylerDurden post soviet Russia is a very mixed economy not a free one.
@@condaquan9459 that is why I said that Chile had enough brains. Rational freedom comes from intellect.
TyyylerDurden fair enough. Though I would not say Russia took any guidance from the ‘Chicago Boys’
@@condaquan9459 there was a period in the early 90th, when the Russian government asked 'Chicago Boys' for help in rebuilding the post-soviet economy.
today he wouldn't be allowed to speak at a college
+alex cody He would but he would be constantly interrupted by ignoramuses with air horns.
we'll never know
+alex cody Given the general reception of those who lean toward the right on college campuses, I think one could imagine a scenario in which Friedman is unwelcome.
Good.
yep, lets keep a closed mind
RESULTS! Not intentions, thank you!
+Jordan Rodriguez Friedman emphasized theory because once put in practice as public policy his Monetarist doctrine spelled disaster. So as your post suggests, we are more likely to understand Milton's aims if we ignore the theory and mute the chatter long enough to examine the results. What we live by are dreams but what we are forced to live with are the social outcomes of those dreams.
+gary morrison Sorry dude, but "The PURSUIT of happiness" is not the same thing as "GUARANTEED happiness". Many achieve their dreams, many not. I can live with the fact that at least I tried my best. Or like Michael Jordan once said, "I can accept failure, what I cannot accept is not trying". The individual is the only one who can lift himself out of poverty and the ineptitude of government has shown how to make a living out of the poverty victimization card.
+gary morrison When Friedman was advising government, the USA had the period known as " the 25 year boom".
It was a function of Government investment that enabled the economic boom following WWll. This period of general prosperity however, was coming to an end by the early-70's. The outcome of the Reagan/ Friedman economic policy regime that followed nearly a decade later, resulted in massive unemployment, exacerbated by high interest rates, ultimately leading to the deindustrialization and disastrous financialization of the US economy Another outcome of Milton Friedman's advice, was the imposition of neoclassical and free-market policies that produced a massive transfer of wealth from the lower third of income distribution, primarily into the pockets of the wealthiest 5% at the top, The so called "free-market" proved just another kind of planned economy calling for an authoritarian takeover of public institutions and the redistribution of public assets into the hands of the already rich; See also, Austerity, Privatization, Structural Adjustment and Friedman/ Pinochet.
gary morrison "decade later, resulted in massive unemployment, " yes it did!
1980 unemployment was 7.1%
Reagan left office in 1989 unemployment was at 5.3%
Dec 1980: Interest Rates hit record high of 21.5%
Reagan entered office in 1981 he left with rates at 10%
"a massive transfer of wealth from the lower third of income distribution," So they taxed the lower class and gave welfare checks, food stamps, to the rich? Or did the whole economy expand? Yep, the economy grew.
It is almost always the correct move to limit government institutions in favor of private ones.
Also, if you want dictators, there is no faster way to get one than to have a socialist leader.
We need this man so bad in our country.
all countries tbh
He died in 2006.
We need men molded and shaped by his words to act within our own generation to educate those that appear ignorant on what government is.
you need common sense and good genes for a good brain use.
We had him, in the Regan administration.
People say Capitalism is inequality, when we saw the facts in Soviet Union, where you could buy a car, if you were a member of Polit-Bureau. If you weren't, you had no chance.
That was a fact and this is almost the same in the post Soviet Republics unfortunatelly.
Just because there was inequality in Soviet-style authoritarian socialism doesn't mean there isn't inequality in US-style free-market capitalism. Can you buy sports cars? Can you buy mansions in opulent areas? Are there things you cannot buy due to your current position in the social heirachy? If the answer to those questions is yes, as I suspect it is, then inequality exists between the ruling elite and the common man, I.e, you.
This inequality isn't deserved, either. CEOs often earn over 300 times the annual wages of their employees. Can you honestly say that those CEOs do 300 times the work, work 300 times a hard, and, therefore, deserve their bat concentration of wealth?
Social and economic inequality under both socialism and capitalism must be expunged.
+SirSoz I see, you can't get absolutely equal community, which has everything it needs. Yeah even today is inequality according to worth and wealth, but each people are equal under the law in USA. We can't provide an ideal conditions in society, but there were and here are still people in my country, who don't care about any tenets, break the law and do everything they want, cause of their posts. That's what i don't like in communism and this sittuation is an echo of communism.
+SirSoz how many people are capable of doing that CEOs job? and now many are for doing the regular jobs? what is the responsibility in the hands of the CEO? so, YOUR values are ought to judge the value of someone's work? that's a very dictatorial idea in principle. socialism is definitely the ideology of envy disguised in fairness.
@@SirSoz value is not work done its the use of that work as the freely expressed individuals who part with their property in the form of money determine it to be.
Sounds Like the USSR was Late Stage Capitalism
By listening to Friedman, and Sowell, it seems clear that economics at its heart, is a factor of what actually works. It’s dispassionate. One must look at the results.
You know, over the years I wanted to DISLIKE Professor Friedmans
Ideology. That is when I realized
I Couldn't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
I saw myself as a " seeker of the
Truth " when in reality I am simply
Petty. This is an Absolutely Intriguing topic.....Thank you for Posting this Video. 🎸💚
Welcome to the light of logic. I'm a recovering Leftist. 25 years sober
The gulf between intentions and results is so big that for many, they can’t see to the other side.
His interpretation of the relationship between system and morality stun me. I have never thought things in this way. System has no meaning, moral values are subjective, it is only through free market to decide the collective moral standards of the majority..... My god, that shapes my new world......
It's up to the people from their cultural values through the politicans and the legal system/legislature that shapes collective moral standards not by implementing economically ignorant, totalitarian ,pseudo-scientific ,moralizing ideology aka socialism and fascism.
The man is very deep!
06:52
The crowd is clueless and does not get the joke about every men getting one house and then two men who will be his servants.
That would yield something infinitely repetitive and therefore unsustainable.
I noticed that too, they don't understand that the servants would require servants?
@@khorps4756 i didint realise it. Thanks for explaining.
Love the smile of this man
He knows his subject
every time i watch these lectures i'm like, "milton looks like he's from today." :cuts to audience: MOTHER OF GOD.
just like the Freud death wish example, another analogy I think of when comparing capitalism to socialism is : you have to love (aka take care of) yourself as an individual before you can even think of being ABLE to help the next person. This is why charitable giving and generosity flow much more freely in a capitalist nation than one of collectivism.
help others by helping yourself. i dont want to be a burden on my fellow man.
If only people would take what they need, that theory works. But people at the top take much more than they need. Charity tries to ameliorate the need at the bottom, but there's just too much greed. Reminds me of The Platform.
The problem now is that the average american thinks Sweden is socialist and america is very capitalist.. Sweden is actually more capitalist than the US, but has a larger welfare state. The US is a mixed market economy. We are burdened with social programs, government regulations, and corporatism. This is not true capitalism. So the perception of capitalism is obfuscated to Americans. We think our problems stem from capitalism when it actually stems from government intervention.
We live by are dreams but what we are forced to live with are the social outcomes of those dreams. RESULTS! Not intentions, you are correct and Milton thanks large!
I would love to see his take on the covid reaction. The largest example of collectivism and cognitive dissonance
Perfectly said.
@Friedstuffsable You are right about one thing - US public education is a perfect example of collectivism which is why it is such an unmitigated disaster, why even more socialistic countries adopt school choice and why private schools with entirely comparable student bodies outperform public schools by several orders of magnitude and at lower cost.
Collectivism is the most selfish idea ever.
Loving the doublethink there. Liberalism, a political ideology enforcing individualism, has been said to "make selfishness a virtue". How is working for the benefit of others, and others working for the benefit of you, selfish? It is selflessness in its most pure form. Individualism is the selfish one - you benefit at the cost of everyone else. There can only ever be a minority of winners, and a majority of losers. This would be fine if the system was meritocratic, but as it isn't (due to greater opportunities that the rich possess). So a disproportionate amount of people who do not deserve to get ahead succeed, and the people at the bottom, already disadvantaged, fall deep into poverty. Tell me, which belief is the selfish one.
+SirSoz Voluntarily working for the benefits of others is great and certainly not selfish. This is what every person has to do in capitalism - in order for you to eat, *others* have to benefit first by buying your stuff.
Forcing other people to work for your benefit, and believing you have the right to force them just because you were born (which is the essence of any redistribution scheme, including socialism) is very selfish.
+SirSoz
''Liberalism, a political ideology enforcing individualism, has been said to "make selfishness a virtue". ''
The key word is enforcing.
It's the opposite of liberalism.
+SirSoz "you benefit at the cost of everyone else"
This is collectivism you're describing here.
You think people in labor camps work for their own benefit?
+rtcell +rtcell Capitalism doesn't involve the voluntary working for others. Capitalism has created a situation, through the unequal possession of wealth and private ownership of the means of production, where the poor must sell the only valuable thing they possess, their labour power, in order to avoid starvation. It is the equivalent of a doctor poisoning a man and his family, and offering them a cure for £1 million a pill. Is this a fair choice? No, of course not, because the situation has been created, and the choice is constrained by the threat of death. Choices cannot be free and voluntary if they are constrained by the threat of death, if a choice isn't made. To participate in such a system by paying workers as little as possible so that your rate of profit can rise (which all capitalists must do to remain competitive), IS selfish, as you are putting your own personal happiness above the happiness of multitudes.
What an amazing guy - RIP Milton!!!
I'd like to see a Keynesian economist video on youtube talking about how well central planning works. Haha
Powerful content. Thank you!
If only Milton Friedman was born a few decades later - we all could sure use him now.
You know what strikes me watching this? That Friedman would NOT be allowed to have speeches or conduct Q and A at most college campuses today. How sad is that? This crowd is listening intently and politely. Today there would be someone screaming and cursing and pointing and whatever other sad, childish display. I now think colleges should be shut down and should be started anew with strict guidelines of no safe spaces and dissent and discussion is our LIFEBLOOD.
Collectivism when initiated by the government almost always resorts in coercion which robs individuals of their free-will and saps human dignity. When individuals work together in corporations they do so out of their own choice. However collectivism brought about by the government leaves people with no choice.
You also have to remember that although those business may have to work together collectively, they nonetheless aim to shine as individuals in their own right.
One of the great books on this issue is the book "Out of Step," the autobiography of the individualist philosopher Frank Chodorov. What makes Chodorov's analysis superior to that of von Mises and others who consider themselves libertarians is his recognition that there is a just distinction between those produced, tangible assets rightfully considered to be private property versus natural assets the individual control over which is rightfully considered a monopolistic privilege requiring a payment of the market-determined rent to the community.
Friedman came close to Chodorov's position by embracing the idea that public revenue is best raised by the taxation of land values, a nod to Henry George.
I love you Milton Friedman!
3:28 that guys glasses look like they were edited in lol. oh yeah, also, good lecture too.
"I used to believe in socialism, i still do. But socialism is an ideal, we can't have it in the real world until we are rich enough to afford it". This was a genius statement I must say. Living in Sweden I can see this in front of my own eyes. Sweden has had its good times with socialism(they did afford it), but because of it, the glory days are soon over.
I love the glases!!
3:40 If only the best words to describe what socialism actually is didn't sound so abstract. To exaggerate slightly, though not much, it's like saying the definition of "slaughter" is: "to purposefully deactivate a biological system". The definition should evoke an image comparable to the scenarios they entail, and to those who need to hear it most, they most certainly don't. And so as collectivists are clearly so obsessed with bending the meaning of words to suit their agenda, I think we can at least be given clearence to revolutionise how we speak about these topics and maybe update the standard dictionary definition too.
Tell a child that their "parents will control all means of production from now on" and they'll likely shrug their shoulders and say "ok, cool". Only once their parents physically restrict them as they go to say draw a picture, make a lego construction, write poetry etc will they suddenly realise what the "means of production" is.
If we were to say instead:
"the objects (e.g. tools/materials/equipment) and land with which we require to make things (e.g shoes, jewellery, paintings, music, buildings etc).
... then I think we'd see an immediate decrease in the numbers of teenage communists.
But that's only half of it, the other half is with those who can't be changed. I personally beleive that despite there being legitmate weight to much leftwing literature, the movement as a whole since its conception strikes me as simply the natural progression, or the organised political for face for a particular class of individuals. I beleive that a parasite-host synergy is the typical response to the shifting from complete equality to slightly biased. Which is another way of saying, the second someone has something which someone else hasnt got, the other person adapts their behaviour accordingly. Think of how we might answer the phone more to people who are wealthy vs people who probably want something. And then think of how the people who want something answers the phone, either to those wealthier or those with even less then them! I beleive it takes the best of us not to be influenced in such ways. But I still beleive it to be a powerful law of nature, and one that manifests itself in humans wherever differences in wealth occur. People who are comfortable taking from others fraudulently. For this you need to be greedy and/or lazy, lacking in empathy, and driven to do what it takes. Today we use the terms narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy, psychopathy etc. But my point is, is that collectivism (or equity) is the natural manifestation of the fraudulent and parasitic human mind on the intellectual/political stage. It has always been there laying dormant, only now does it have a loud (and cool sounding) voice. For those die-hard collectivists, theres nothing you can do or say to change their mind, and they will happily lie through their teeth in order to maintain thier image.
Communism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism is the redistribution of the fruits of the means of production.
Yeah, right! :-D ... everyone gets poorer and poorer according to this distributiom model. Nothing can get bigger by divison. End result? Starvation, misery and death. Always. #DeathCult
I was about to comment on video, but you took the words out of my mouth! re-reading you covered all my points, spot on.
Shout out to the dude sleeping at 1:34
He looks kind of like if thunderf00t and disco stu had a baby, or maybe weird al.
we all have been tired at least one time in school or uni
I could listen to this guy all day long. Brillant!!
He's absolutely right about socialism. Its a disaster. But his logic is beyond atrocious. He first suggests that morality is separate to systems of governing. Then at the end, he suggests that capitalism leads to justice. Dumbest fucking logic I've ever heard. Wars for oil profit, Panama Canal, Suez canal, shipping wars, etc. Maybe there is more to this specific speech, but most of his writings are about how great capitalism is. He had it right in the beginning...(Its not great, and its not evil). I would add that its as good as the people it contains.
The free market, when actually free does not cause the crimes you have mentioned. Only when big, corrupt government is involved do those series of events occur.
WISE ARCADIAN Thats not what I'm pointing out at all.
Slap Stick Economic systems aren't responsible for those crimes, Statist imperialist and political and monetary greed are, states are very greedy whether operating under a capitalist or socialist or whatever economic system, anything that is done through force is not capitalism
Father Karras Yes, how is that at all out of line with my assertion that the State is murderous and not private enterprise operating independently
+Slap Stick When is the last time a corporation started a war for profit? Last time I checked corporations do not have standing armies. Only governments can start wars for profit
People who don’t produce anything need collectivism. It’s their way of ducking the responsibility of producing something of value that requires a price placed upon it.
If you can shirk that then you are free to spout bullshit at everyone else’s cost.
Amazing how unproductive the bottom 30% are.
@MaxxTheMerciless cont... This is because when the survival of a nation is at stake, often a nation will appeal to patriotic feeling, the impending threat of the enemy, and other things, which may very well be valid, to motivate the citizenry. Collectivists must use similar language to promote their agendas. Hence the crisis in everything, and only they are there to help. As Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
So laughably pathetic arguments...Less inequality in a society where the 1% owns 50% of the wealth and comparing that to Soviet politburo limos.But this was in the 70s when after years of Keynesian policies(brought about by the existence of the USSR)people were in fact able to believe that capitalism might have something good in store for the "ordinary man".Today the students would be throwing tomatoes at him.
To clarify, a co-op is a specific type of collective. In our example, the factory may be a production co-op. The difference between a collective and a company is that in a collective, the people on the shop floor can fire the president.
The advantage of a collective is that it allows people of little wealth to pool resources in order to become competitive in the market place, and thus gain wealth.
Atlas Shrugged has a similar idea: that the core motivation or collectivism is a morality of death. I think it's a cool dramatic idea. But the explanation seems simpler to me, too. I agree with Friedman, even though by another route.
The collective is ultimately defined by the individuals which comprise it. Human beings are not numbers in a state computer... they are individuals, unique and responsible.
@MrSnipsnip007 I apologize for the confusion. Note, I argued that it takes four to six years to be FULLY realized. While other economists would certainly agree that some actions can begin having an impact immediately, none would accept the premise (inherent in the data set broken up by presidential terms) that the full effect is immediate (particularly when their first budget doesn't even begin til October).
My individualism is in alignment with my collectivism because it betters my individual.
Absolute champion
02:18 "the emphasis on moral values is almost always on the part of people who do not have economic problems, not on the part of the masses".
Masses expand. But wealthy untouched, now saintly
@Zoravar0v0 a CEO is the general manager of all operations. This takes a certain type of person but doesn't necessarily deserve more money. The point is that a workers value should be measured by his knowledge and dedication to a specific job. His value shouldn't be based on a title so therefore all employees who use their talents with equal dedication should all be paid equally. It's a win win for everyone.
I like Milton Friedman. His points of view make a lot of sense to me.
@dissimulate666 following your argument; Actors who are highly paid are EXPLOITED by the producers, Highly paid Lawyers are Exploited by the owner of the law firm and other highly paid professionals(workers) are exploited by their employers. I never denied the "value of labor", I just pointed out that labor is just one of the things in the equation, therefore discrediting the LTV and ET. Can things materialize with only labor? or is it because a you worked on something it auto..cont.
It's not my fault that you won't talk to yourself (though calling yourself a clown may be a bit harsh). Nothing I've said is factually assailable or even controversial economically. The text of Glass-Steagall itself supports my position as does the economic analysis avaiable (even the nature and quality of those who claim otherwise). Nothing I've presented is supposition (not even the analysis of the S&L crisis). I am not responsible for your ignorance.
A study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is.When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions,90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender,age,income level,or party affiliation- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth.In fact,the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth
Milton Friedman was brilliant
@dtorfleming You make my point for me. Since there WAS mo "massive deregulation"; since repeal of Glass-Steagall changed no banking regulations and had nothing to do with the crisis; since reduction of taxes is never economically harmful and since (excepting recessions) US manufacturing output has continued to grow substantially for decades, not ONE of those non-issues had ANYTHING to do with ANY crisis.
@ssmusic214 no it means to do as one pleases, its a french word that mean to let be without any type of interference.
In the USA, socialism became the equivalent of moderate policies in the rest of the world. Things like social democracy and keynesianism are regarded as socialism in the USA.
@shining3210
With what model? Economic models should be far more complex than weather models since it has to incorporate weather effects.
In former USSR no one hided their wage earning from ordinary worker,including top governmental officials.But in USA every ones income is private.Its the origin of exploitation of man from man,yet the end of exploitation is employee at will doctrine in private enterprise system.
No one hid (if that's even true) their actual wage but Communist officials certainly hid all the stuff they stole and embezzled. The official income of a government official is completely irrelevant when they have the ability to steal from the population at will.
@CollectivePreference I'm not talking about China. And no, they weren't miserable failures - I recently read in the newspaper recently that GDP growth in Sovjet was an average of about 2% pr. year. Many centrally planned projects succeeded in providing clothes, food, housing materials etc. What do you think was produced in those factories that were sold off to Oligarks far below their value under the Yeltsin "anarchy period"? P.S. Look up nestle powdered milk
@theMadMarxist 1)"Something exists" is an objective observation. 2) In the context of morality (virtue of action), sin (transgression of "divine law"[neg.]) and miracle (supernatural events[neutral]) are only contrary in the discussion of subjective preference. 3) Freedom is the capacity of change; It is bound by reference, and is relative, but not necessarily subjective. 4) It is a non-sequitur to value something more than one's values. 5) Choice is the act of discovering and living our values.
I am a Monarchist in the USA but .. I didn't understand that the 'conservative' anti-communist speakers talking about things like public education (especially I'd guess mandatory kind), graduated income tax, etc are all parts of the actual communist manifesto which I was always taught was just a 'pamphlet' as if it's a 2-page brochure.. well they're right around page 27 or something like that on the usual PDF you can find of it on line.. amazing.
The banana industry was never going to disappear. As you have said, the consumer, Australians, paid more for bananas to subsidies the industry. I gave that example because even you cannot deny that somebody was forced to pay more so that somebody else could earn money.
In addition, the people who benefited most were not the farmers who were affected by the cyclone, but the farmers who weren't affected. They continued operating, whilst benefiting from government restrictions and lack of supply.
He says morals are an individualistic idea. I disagree. We are taught our morals by our parents, by the societies we live in and by the people and ideas we “collectively” surround ourselves with.
But what if two groups of people have differing morals? Ultimately somebody's getting some unrecognized rights ignored by central planners.
I'd argue that your morals aren't taught, but are shaped by all those things, including the biggest of all: personal experience. You may think that your morals are identical to the people you adopted them from, but it may be in fact that your morals only borrow from those people, but have their own personal nuances that separate them from your parents and many others, making them more individualistic in nature.
Ultimately, you will always believe in what you want to believe, and that will always differ from person to person. No two people will agree on everything morally.
Conversely, some moral values do exist and are shared in the better interest of humanity as a collective, but if you dig deeper into the details of how one person thinks or feels about a plethora of issues, my argument still stands that you would have a hard time finding two people that will give identical responses to all of it.
The major discovery of Western philosophy in the moral arena was that the individual is the ultimate minority and as such is most deserving of protection against the collective of literally everyone else. First among those moral principles is property rights beginning with yourself, self-ownership. This is why the West came up with ideas like individual rights, the subordination of the government to the governed, governance by consent (democracy and the social contract), innocent until proven guilty etc. and other cultures did not. The simple fact is that basic principles like these led to the freedom that produced the most prosperous nations on earth with the greatest drive towards the protection of the individual the world has ever seen. The West has certainly not been perfect in implementing this but put into perspective it is doing well enough and consistently improving to the point that the violations that do happen seem absolutely outrageous even when they are usually minor compared to much of what happens elsewhere.
You are actually using the word collective incorrectly here. Societies are, of course, groups of people taking part in the same social game. Their morals tend to broadly align, as is necessary for the society to be coherent at all, but the more nuance and specifics are added to the case being discussed the more controversy arises, people are not identical in their moral outlook and that is true whether the morals of the society are individualistic or collectivist. When we talk about collectivist or individualistic morals we are talking about the character of the moral systems. Individualistic systems begin with the idea of sovereign individuals and self-ownership and proceed from there, collectivist morals are based on social or economic class, caste or any number of other potential defining characteristics or combinations thereof. In collectivist systems the rules that apply to an individual are determined by the various characteristics possessed by that individual and which group associations come with those and therefore the prescriptions provided may or may not be appropriate to the situation. More critically, the group to which the individuals belong are all that really matters, the individuals do not. Individuals are therefore disposable as the loss of some members of a group will not destroy that group. There are times where collectivism is necessary (war for example, preservation of the society must come before preservation of the individuals), but without exception collectivist approaches to morality result in far more catastrophic results for the individuals than individualistic approaches. This is why systems like communism (collectivist on the basis of class), or fascism (collectivist on the basis of nationality) have such poor records when it comes to the treatment of their people. The mass deaths that result from the implementation of systems like those is a consequence of the collectivist nature of the system, not an anomaly within it. Western moral philosophy is absolutely individualistic in character. So essentially what Friedman is saying here is that collectivist societies are morally bankrupt.
@terryshiavoftw
I love your honesty. I love how your not afraid to speak the truth. We need more of you out there. Thank you:)
@kamikazee55 Voluntary transactions of privately owned property? In the UK, most of the land was arbitarily doled out centuries ago. Now of course we call it private, yet it is more appropriate to regard it as stolen in this context. I think we can only talk of something as being private when it is earned by legitimate means.
@MrSnipsnip007 The point is, a CEO can double his income by doubling the company's risk. He doesn't share any of the downside. He doesn't have to give back any of his large paycheck if problems arise from his decisions 3 years later. Anybody who talks about the motivations that companies have, like Alan Greenspan's famous speech in which he said he was surprised the banks with their phd's couldn't see the crisis coming, is making a mistake of thinking that companies are individuals.
Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics claimed to have refined and developed modern, scientific tools of ‘free market capitalism’, capable of unlocking ever greater rewards from Adam Smith’s simple, primitive concept of free markets. Monetary Fascism was rapidly adopted because western culture recognizes the tremendous historical contributions of traditional free market capitalism and wanted to participate in the promise of these enhanced rewards.
the essey hes talking about.. any got any info on that?
Wow! ! Total respect! !!
I clicked on this to get more ideas on collectivism to apply it to the digital collectivist idea. The beginning of his recorded/edited lecture can be directed to a broader audience especially talking about Freud and the death wish. The rest can be accessed through history books.
***** Witness bedrock understanding:
For this, we're likely going to need some degree of "re-education", which sounds ominous enough, but is a gross understatement for what it will provide. This part is the difficult part that most people have a hard time grasping. Not for lack of intelligence, but for the previous and intentional mis-education that they were socialized to. "Once you are wet, it's so hard to get dry..." We may not be clear to what your socialization has been, but we'll find out soon enough, won't we? We are going to cover some pretty dense material here, so be ready for some double takes. The learning curve is steep from here on out, so hold on tight:
We are going to be using source/proxy constructs whose actual and root definitions are not reflected in standard dictionaries. This has been done to purposely mislead you and I from understanding them accurately. We're going to give the accurate and root definitions at their actual source. When you finally come to see it, it's going to peel away so much for you to find and understand. The best thing is- unfortunately- is that almost everyone can see it if they are willing to just look. It's available to everyone to hear if they be still enough to listen.
The current and standard dictionary definitions are proxy and are thus not direct to their source. This is done to keep us from noticing critical items of interest that would render the current State power constructs vulnerable. If one is not sure what they are dealing with, then how can they grasp and articulate it to begin with? So if you really come to understand this, we can then begin to spread this power to change the world for the betterment of everyone. Please be still enough to see and hear this:
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well?
As mentioned, most standard dictionaries intentionally don't include source definitions and instead cite spun political versions as source material when that is simply not so. Let's use the proxy that proceeds the following: (1) Individualism/ Collectivism, (2)Conservative/Liberal, (3) Capitalist/Socialist/Communist, and (4) various parties.
(0) Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well?"
This precedes any political definition as it encompasses every action in our daily lives regardless of politics. This is fundamental source code. Politics come after. With this, one can see that no matter the race, culture, religion, country or economic/political construct, Individualism (Conservative) is only tolerant of it's likeness where as Collectivism (Liberal) is more or less tolerant of everyone.
Individualism- To the Individual self (in)
Collectivism- To the Collective (out)
Conservative- To Conserve or retain-to the self (in)
Liberal- as in Liberty and freedom-for all (out)
It is undeniable that Conservative is a proxy to Individualism where as Liberal is a proxy to Collectivism. As Conservatives/Individualists are only tolerant of those of their likeness, they tend to project their Individual ideals over others. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and so on did just that. If it seems confusing, then you are confusing proxies. One can have a Conservative in charge of a Collectivist Construct (Hitler) just a one can have a Liberal in charge of an Individualist Construct (Bill Clinton). But Collectivist constructs only work when Individuals refrain from from projecting their Individual ideals over a Collective whole. Collectivism relies on all Individual participant, not just one Individual projection over a Collective whole.
Individualism is the collection of power and energy into densities or Individual points- like money and power, or Dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. where as Collectivism is the dispersal of a power and energy amongst the Collective, like social aid programs or civil rights. What has been kept hidden from everyone are some key fundamental points. There are 3 things in the known universe that mirror pure Individualism: Quantum Singularities(black holes), Cancer and literally Nothing. They all project over a collective, divide and consume, and are only tolerant of their likeness. Every thing else in the known Universe is Collective based. Even families are Collectives, until they are not...
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were all Conservatives who helmed Collectivist ideological constructs and intentionally drove those Liberal/Collectivist constructs into the ground to make way for the one that most closely models Individualism: Conservative Capitalism. You thought that Conservative helmed Communism or Socialism was bad- Just wait until The Beast is throned in Conservative Capitalism. It is said that the third time's a real charm ;) You see, money is not the "root" of all evil as it is just a proxy for the source: Individualism. Money does like to collect into densities...
Manson, Brevik, McVeigh, and Osama bin Laden all projected their separate, individual ideologies over a Collective to a devastating effect. They were all Conservatives of their respective ideologies. You see, Liberal/Collectivist Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists don't butcher themselves or others, but Conservative ones do. Individualism is the source behind every civilian on civilian crime or mass murder with the "Me First-@#$% Them" mentality it propagates. As we know, Densities gravitate to wards each other and interact until joined or dispersed. Individualism is the source of all sin as corruption begins with the Individual self. People discuss Individual rights sure enough, but if they are given to everyone, then they are actually Collective rights.
The reason that no one has ever found solutions is that we've been given proxy definitions and not source definitions. We've all been given a bad map starting in grade school. like this guy in the video here... What I gave voice to cannot be refuted, but only hidden from view for a time. It will always resurface, as it is here and now. It is an ideal, a living construct and likely the strongest and most elegant one we know of. It is powerful and undeniable. And everywhere in our lives. And it has many Names...
We've all been raised on stories of the good guy vs. the bad guy. Notice anything interesting about that? In every instance, the good guy sacrificed their individual self for the protection of the Collective whole where as the bad guy was willing to hurt others in projecting their ideals over the Collective? In every story we grew up with, it has been ever present. Even Christ and The Bible are Liberal Collectivist constructs. No where is that shown greater than where Christ sacrificed his Individual self to save the Collective whole. "Where two or more gather in My Name" is a Collective notion, not an Individual one. This is quite telling and gives strong formulaic reference to His existence, even if only as a mental construct or a parable. It's in the source code we discuss here. What is described so far is simply a source definition.
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Are you for only yourself, or are you for others as well?
In 1910, only a third of non-farm owner-occupied home purchases were mortgaged. The non-farm homeownership rate in 1920 was 41 percent; the homeownership rate of farmers was 58 percent
In the 20 years between 1930 to 1950, for the non-farm ownership rate rate to jumped 7 percentage points, from 48 percent to 55 percent.Today it is about 66%
But to save some time, here are some quotes from Riley 2013.
"The major macroeconomic effects of protection on a domestic economy are negative"
"resources are misallocated because they are directed away from efficient and competitive industries"
"Capital resources are also wasted, and the returns to all the factors of production will necessarily be lower" - (in other words, inevitably be lower)
I did not have a "lapse of clarity". What i said was, "Moral and ethical reasons are not sufficient", the key word being sufficient. I did not say that they could not be considered, just that ideals such as freedom or equality cannot be used as absolute evidence for or against something in economics. Often the intent is very different from the results, government housing being a prime example. Of course the freedom of choice is a valid argument, but it is not an end in itself.
Correction: The book in which the essay appears is called "From Under the Rubble".
Yes, in the examples you list society as a whole cannot be blamed because for the choices of an individual. The extent in which society can be blamed for ill morals would be what was taught in the family and even that cannot prevent the deeds of an individual because it is a choice to adhere to good morals.
Wow...this guys mind. When I saw the video about how immorality is now profitized my mind was blown but this...this is brilliant. And I am a political nerd but never heard of the Russian man he refers to. Thank goodness for Friedman, gunna check that book out
@daPlumber702 Mr. Friedman is the one claiming "expertise". If you disagree with me on some specific point I'd be glad to engage in a lively debate, but not personal attacks.
@fzqlcs I've only read Free to Choose BUT this is from a 1995 interview with Friedman with Reason Magazin.
"In Capitalism and Freedom we came out on the side of favoring compulsory schooling and in Free To Choose we came out against it. "
I can't post the link but google "milton friedman reason 1995" the interview is titled "Best of Both Worlds"
1921,the program moved to the Commerce Department,where Secretary Herbert Hoover soon became the nation's foremost promoter of home ownership."Maintaining a high percentage of individual home owners is one of the searching tests that now challenge the people of the United States" Hoover wrote in 1925-"The present large proportion of families that own their own homes is both the foundation of a sound economic and social systemand a guarantee that our society will continue to develop rationally"
Of cause there are collective norms and values in a society which are shared but that is in the public sphere. In the private sphere we tend to have more personal "morals" which are individual based on our background and upbringing which may or may not differ from our next door neighbour but are unlikely to be shared by everyone in your society.
@fzqlcs "bussing" was a misquote on my part. I was in class and didn't have the interview on hand.
Once again i reiterate because of how harsh you were in your response. I am a free market capitalist Friedman, Rand, Paul libertarian. I am not arguing against Friedman but only in his defense.
If there's one thing I disagree with Friedman is that morals are not subjective to each individual. They are objective. Each individual may determine what morals he follows and how he may apply them to his life, but in truth they know somewhere somehow that he falls short even if he doesn't admit them, even as he refuses to see the truth. They are like laws of nature; they can't be violated, but they can be ignored at one's own peril.
What does privatizing the prison system have to do with court verdicts?
(4) The SEC’s Voluntary Regulation Regime for Investment Banks, 2004-2008
The SEC's Consolidated Supervised Entity (CSE) regime was introduced in 2004. It allowed investment banks to engage in their own net capital requirements in accordance with the standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. It was voluntarily administered, and the result was that investment banks pushed borrowing ratios to as high as 40 to 1, as in the case of Merrill Lynch
Freedom means nothing to a man stranded on a desert island, but thats a philosophical discussion. Even such lofty goals as freedom are viewed differently by different people. On the issue of tariffs, i believe that liberty isn't sufficient to justify a free market. It is an important argument, but it is not an end. If you want louisthegreater to provide evidence for tariffs, then i believe that we should also supply evidence against tariffs, ALONG with the argument for greater individual choice.
So from what Mr. Friedman is saying here, both political parties in this country have tried scocialism in their own way. The Democratic party has tried to equalize economics for the poor and middle class, and the Republican party has tried to equalize economics for the corporations and their wealthy owners. In either case, the politicians create problems for the other party and keep the tug-of-war going to get our votes. Only when we achieve a balance can we have progress.
@FletchforFreedom This is clearly why there appears to be some confusion on your part. I am not talking about the world - in terms of the discussion about land ownership, I am talking about the UK specifically. Not just in size, but land value too, noone comes near the Duke of Westminster either.
@terryshiavoftw who original theorizes on youtube. i mean...why wouldn't you copyright your material and publish?
Federal support of home ownership began as an extension by corporate interest to try to stop unions to be strong.Their meaned that homeowners ten with mortgage debt don't go on strike.A public-relations campaign dubbed "Own Your Own Home" - originally launched by the National Association of Real Estate Boards in the aftermath of World War I - was taken over by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1917 and became the first federal program explicitly aimed at encouraging home ownership.
@jsnki Not quite - he has made the argument at other times and in other places.
Perhaps it had to do with that particular audience... I don't know.
Morality isn't subjective, it's objective. Universally Preferable Behavior demonstrates this.
@Friedstuffsable As ccg points out, your argument is nonsensical. Whether the issue is roads or the FAA, the fact that the government has instituted a monopoly and offered a service without price (because the cost is covered by taxes) does not indicate a failure of the market or suggest that the private sector could not provide them better and cheaper as has proved the case in schools, health care provision, fire fighting services, postal services, etc.
@authorityblues "workers ownership of production" is not a principle of either form of socialism, in fascism (property rights but no commercial rights, the owners of the businesses and peoples work is allowed, and not taken by the government. in the other form of socialism, communism( no property rights or commercial rights) no ownership is permitted , either by the workers who own factories or the workers who work for them, in both the government controls commerce.
"The degree of social injustice, and torture, and incarceration in a place like Russia is in a different order of magnitude than in the western countries in which we grew up.."
That is no argument against socialism sir
@longbow1600 wrong. In Friedman's book capitalism and freedom he argues FOR compulsory bussings to schools. He later decided he was wrong and changes his views to argue for school choice (voucher system)
I never said that inequality was not present. I was only refuting your idea that inequality is a "new phenomenon". It may well be the case that equality has been in decline over the past 30 years, but that does not mean we have the greatest inequality ever known to man today, and it certainly doesn't allow you to conclude that the free market system is to blame.
Happy warrior. I love Dr. Friedman.
@madass888 Im sorry english is not my main langiage, can you explain what do you mean by command economy?
Collectivism appeals to the lazy man because he is unable to create or do anything for himself and therefore must stand on the backs of others to feel any self worth and survive and have his basic needs provided. Rest assured.... These are the first to die off in any hardship. Darwin will clean this mess up soon enough.
Financial deregulation was a fundamental cause of the crisis
in the the US. 2008, we can point to a number of important acts of financial deregulation that were the direct causes of the crisis:
1) Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (1999)
In the US, the Glass-Steagall Act, initially created in the wake of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, prohibited banks from both accepting deposits and underwriting securities. This led to segregation of investment banks from commercial banks
@FletchforFreedom It is simply not, and putting the dots together should not be difficult as I have listed comprehensively the names of the chief landowners. The aristocrats below are not 'aristocrats' either - they are blue blooded families that go back a long way. How many acres does Rausing own in the UK by the way?