@@upstateNYfinest let's say both. Both are the actual beacon of hope in this wretched world other than your faith in your choice of religion. The next generation of libertarian, in whatever race, religion, sex, should build their intellectualism on these gentlemen literature. I am a libertarian from a far East Asian country, they will always be my inspiration to try and contribute to my nation development.
You are assuming the thing you are trying to prove: it was not capitalism that failed. Unless you have a different definition of capitalism? Regardless, his point stands that our major problems are social, not economic. The point about the socialization of education is particularly telling.
Depends entirely on your definitions of socialism and capitalism. By the American definition, the most successful European societies are socialist. Since they have free universal healthcare, free (higher) education, and robust social systems to redistribute wealth. If you demand that in the US you are called a socialist. So Socialism can only be viewed as a failure if you only look at communist societies. Capitalism's success on the other hand depends on the metrics in which you measure. Do you measure economic growth? Do you measure upward social mobility? Do you measure environmental impact? Do you measure inequality? Do you measure its effects on democratic governance? No question capitalism creates unprecedented growth, although that is not limited to free-market capitalism. Europes comparatively tightly regulated social-market economies also produce this kind of growth and wealth. They even distribute this wealth more equally, which is from a normative perspective more fair and just, and from an economic perspective a more efficient allocation of capital. Upward social mobility collapsed in the US in the 1980s with Reagan's neoliberal reforms. His reforms uncoupled economic growth and the growth of real wages, leading to accelerated accumulation of wealth at the very top while the middle class stagnated and eventually began to shrink as the lower class grew. Growth continued to be massive and with it, consumption and the environmental footprint grew. Climate change is a result of this enormous productivity, but blaming capitalism for climate change doesn't make sense. Non-capitalist societies are just as harmful to the environment, they just usually don't have the means for this massive impact. But the thing we can blame capitalism for is that it doesn't have an answer to climate change. As a result of neoliberal reform, capital accumulated at the very top freely, and with this massive accumulation came political influence. In theory, markets self-regulate. If a product has harmful effects, the damages are supposed to be priced in and competition would replace that product with less damaging alternatives. For this principle to work, negative effects need to be immediate. But with climate change, the consequences of the product in question (fossil fuels) are diffuse and at least a century in the future. So the damages fossil fuels do aren't priced in. And the massive power of the fossil fuel industry is used to protect its fossil fuel profits and prevent governmental regulation that aims to mitigate climate change. So capitalism, or at least neoliberal capitalism, as Friedman and Hayek have proposed it, has created an economic death cult willing to sacrifice our global stable eco-system for short to medium term private profits. I am sure Friedman and Hayek never intended that, but nonetheless, the direct line from their ideas to the current day American oligarchy is very obvious. Their overemphasized disdain for the government turned out to be the downfall of their ideology. Instead of a government distorting the free market we now have massive conglomerates and monopolies distorting the market, driving a development that is completely out of step with human interests.
@@BangThaBazie The catastrophising isn't a good look. It's also kind of ironic you would mention the 'successful' examples of soft socialism (or whatever term) in Europe. Norway, for example, pays for all its social programs by exporting the huge quantities of oil it drills from the North Sea.
@@harryradley Thats not even true. Norways has a fund in which every citizen has a theoretical budget based on their oil riches(it is about a million $ per capita), but their social systems are independently financed. But let's look at the other side: Why does the world spend 6.8% of the global GDP on fossil fuel subsidies? (according to a recent study by the IMF) That is socialism for fossil fuels and to a greater extent than any social program. 6.8% of global GDP is literally 6.8% of all the value created on the entire planet in one year. All that money is only spent to artificially keep an uncompetitive industry alive - fossil fuels. Free market my ass. Why is it that we can socialize the losses of private industry, but privatize the profits? We bail out banks, airlines, car manufacturers, subsidize low wage employees of companies like Walmart, all that is taxpayer money being used to socialize the losses of private industry, while all the profits remain private as these companies usually use any and all tricks to avoid taxes on top of being subsidies left and right. Why is it that the US can spend $750 billion of tax payer money on war every year and no one bats an eye, but spending just a fraction of that on healthcare, education and other social services and everybody becomes concerned about "spending"? This isn't a free market, this isn't even capitalism. This is just pure corporatism, in which the most powerful big money interests have enough political influence to make governments support their private business with taxpayer money. And they also have enough control over the media to tell the dumb gullible people that this is the way it should be and everything else is like "Venezuela". None of this is rational. We are in the process of destroying our global eco-system for short-term private profits. This will go down in history as the biggest mistake humanity ever made.
Wow, what a clumsy interview -- a bunch of simple, largely disjoint questions. I love listening to MF's wisdom, but that interviewer is not my favorite!
i don't understand why he says that "everybody condemn socialism, and yet in practice we moving down the socialist road", then he keep repeating he want people free and to let people do what they want... if people would be free to do what they want then why not let them have socialism? isn't this a bit contradicting in all he says? to me it seems exactly like a totalitarian system, where he decide that liberty and being free is the most important thing to do, but yet in actuallity he doesn't want people to be free to choose (socialism). i don't know maaaan... for me to have a free society would be to ket peope decide whatever they want and who doesn't want that system just let them leave the country, that would be a free society.
He refers to a free market society. In a free market society we control the markets not the government. We have the choice what to buy, where to go, who to buy from, how much we buy, and what we decide is important to us, we will support. However, ina. Socialist society, government controls part of that. Government takes away part of that freedom. Socialists want to be free too, but yet they advocate the very thing that can take that freedom away from them. Governments. Take the lock down for example. The more government control, the more we aren't free to do what we want. Socialist want to give up part of our freedom to the government. But we all know that freedom is number 1. That's how the US was started. That's what our Constitutions is built for. To keep our freedom and limit government control.
Milton, was 1928 really the golden age (17:30m)?! I'm thinking that the New Deal wasn't simply thought up in 1932 but was a response--whether or not you think it a good one--to the capitalism's worldwide catastrophe of 1929.
trying not to be boring here, but if you apply Friedman's data that the monetary base more than doubled from 1915 to 1920, as well as an increase of about 37 billion to about 57 billion from 1922 to 1928-29, with Hayek's theory of misalignment of goods capital by monetary expansion, this explains the depression. The subsequent expansions of the New Deal prolonged the crisis and clearly did not fix the unemployment that only went down after the second war
The reason we still move towards socialism is that we all realise we are equal in essence. We still need to realise we know as little as anyone else. Must say that in 1928 there were a lot less people. Increased population has caused many social problems, but what do I know?
There is virtually no relationship between population and current social problems. The statistical correlation between amount of resources, emissions, wealth, anything, and total population is very weak. That argument was almost entirely debunked in the 80s after all the overpopulation arguments about unsustainable problems and fear of downward spirals were completely proven wrong when the trends reversed, when wealth, poverty, emissions, and wellbeing all improved despite population increase. You are just flat out wrong.
well then you realize wrong. One thing is equality before the law, another is equality of capacity, of skill, competence, and character. And in those we are not equal.
What is it you're saying that I have assumed? Tell me, then we'll both know. Furthermore, the idea that life is worse than when one was a boy is ludicrously common among people (tho not all) the further they are from the care-free days of youth. Do YOU wish this were 1928? You probably wish instead that the wonderful, wonderful years when u were between ages 1 and 21 could come roaring back. Unless u were born in 1907 the year 1928 probably doesn't represent the height of human happiness to you.
It's not the same thing. Private corporations can be opted out of. They are subject to the voluntary buy in (or buy out) of their patrons. The state however has the power of legislation and fiat they can use to part you from your money. Huge difference sir.
@@mnazaal only by the intervention of a government. Keep the government out of the market and no corporation is too big to fail. Not one. There are businesses that people thought would last forever. They are nowhere significant today or not in existence period. Market capitalism does that because of its inherent competitiveness. "Too big too fail" simply means a corporation should be protected from the competitive reality of the market.
I can't choose to become a lawyer!? (12:30m) Since when?! I may be forced to pass a qualifying exam, but how has that stopped a percentage of aspirants significant enough to justify what amounts here to an existential claim of the absolute loss of (a) freedom? Plus, can't I defend myself in court if I so choose? Not recommended, but permitted. The libertarian claim to be protecting us from slavery (or "serfdom) is passionately felt but poorly defended, invariably. Here and in Hayek.
By limiting the number of people in the profession it will artificially increase the cost of the service (supply and demand). Ik this doesnt seem like a problem now (mostly because law school and the bar exam are a joke), but if the govt decided to make it at all challenging to get barred this would happen again. This has also happened in industries like medicine, plumbing etc
21:15 His whole career was enabled by a government handout 🤣🤣 Its human nature to fight hard to get passed the gate. Then once you’re through, turn around and lock it
I don't see exactly how you can look at a man who both fought to end conscription and advocate for school voucher systems as someone trying to turn around and lock the door. He spent the better part of three decades fighting for better education through vouchers, charter schools, the benefits of which disproportionately help the poor and ethnic minorities. It's more like he jumped over the gate and tried to cut it open to let everyone else through.
How come this precious gem video from 2012, now 7 years old, only have 130 likes?
Because we can realise our own potential. If that got out they would be in real trouble. 😀
Because most people are not interested in listening to facts. Why do you think we are in the mess we are in today?
Because capitalism has not been a success and we all know it.
@@Puzekat2 The society you live in is not what Friedman advocated for. Capitalism's success has only declined with increasing authoritarianism.
we need this man more than ever
Milton Friedman, a true giant. A champion of individual freedom and liberty & the greatest economist of the 20th century.
I like him a lot, but i think it is hayek
@@upstateNYfinest let's say both.
Both are the actual beacon of hope in this wretched world other than your faith in your choice of religion.
The next generation of libertarian, in whatever race, religion, sex, should build their intellectualism on these gentlemen literature.
I am a libertarian from a far East Asian country, they will always be my inspiration to try and contribute to my nation development.
@@upstateNYfinest they are both gods, but they are a bunch of socialists by the one god to trump them all, Mises :D look it up!
The Great Depression was not a failure of capitalism, nor was it worldwide, it was the result of a failure of Government.
+Colby Kuzontkoski
I'm agreeing with Friedman. I wish more people would listen
He rocks that Adam Smith tie so well!
You are assuming the thing you are trying to prove: it was not capitalism that failed. Unless you have a different definition of capitalism? Regardless, his point stands that our major problems are social, not economic. The point about the socialization of education is particularly telling.
4:08 what so many need to hear today.
Depends entirely on your definitions of socialism and capitalism.
By the American definition, the most successful European societies are socialist. Since they have free universal healthcare, free (higher) education, and robust social systems to redistribute wealth. If you demand that in the US you are called a socialist.
So Socialism can only be viewed as a failure if you only look at communist societies.
Capitalism's success on the other hand depends on the metrics in which you measure. Do you measure economic growth? Do you measure upward social mobility? Do you measure environmental impact? Do you measure inequality? Do you measure its effects on democratic governance?
No question capitalism creates unprecedented growth, although that is not limited to free-market capitalism. Europes comparatively tightly regulated social-market economies also produce this kind of growth and wealth. They even distribute this wealth more equally, which is from a normative perspective more fair and just, and from an economic perspective a more efficient allocation of capital.
Upward social mobility collapsed in the US in the 1980s with Reagan's neoliberal reforms. His reforms uncoupled economic growth and the growth of real wages, leading to accelerated accumulation of wealth at the very top while the middle class stagnated and eventually began to shrink as the lower class grew.
Growth continued to be massive and with it, consumption and the environmental footprint grew. Climate change is a result of this enormous productivity, but blaming capitalism for climate change doesn't make sense. Non-capitalist societies are just as harmful to the environment, they just usually don't have the means for this massive impact.
But the thing we can blame capitalism for is that it doesn't have an answer to climate change.
As a result of neoliberal reform, capital accumulated at the very top freely, and with this massive accumulation came political influence. In theory, markets self-regulate. If a product has harmful effects, the damages are supposed to be priced in and competition would replace that product with less damaging alternatives.
For this principle to work, negative effects need to be immediate. But with climate change, the consequences of the product in question (fossil fuels) are diffuse and at least a century in the future.
So the damages fossil fuels do aren't priced in. And the massive power of the fossil fuel industry is used to protect its fossil fuel profits and prevent governmental regulation that aims to mitigate climate change.
So capitalism, or at least neoliberal capitalism, as Friedman and Hayek have proposed it, has created an economic death cult willing to sacrifice our global stable eco-system for short to medium term private profits.
I am sure Friedman and Hayek never intended that, but nonetheless, the direct line from their ideas to the current day American oligarchy is very obvious. Their overemphasized disdain for the government turned out to be the downfall of their ideology.
Instead of a government distorting the free market we now have massive conglomerates and monopolies distorting the market, driving a development that is completely out of step with human interests.
@@BangThaBazie as soon as you say something about climate change no one can take you seriously
@@james3522 You do not believe in man-made climate change?
@@BangThaBazie The catastrophising isn't a good look. It's also kind of ironic you would mention the 'successful' examples of soft socialism (or whatever term) in Europe. Norway, for example, pays for all its social programs by exporting the huge quantities of oil it drills from the North Sea.
@@harryradley Thats not even true. Norways has a fund in which every citizen has a theoretical budget based on their oil riches(it is about a million $ per capita), but their social systems are independently financed.
But let's look at the other side:
Why does the world spend 6.8% of the global GDP on fossil fuel subsidies? (according to a recent study by the IMF)
That is socialism for fossil fuels and to a greater extent than any social program.
6.8% of global GDP is literally 6.8% of all the value created on the entire planet in one year. All that money is only spent to artificially keep an uncompetitive industry alive - fossil fuels. Free market my ass.
Why is it that we can socialize the losses of private industry, but privatize the profits? We bail out banks, airlines, car manufacturers, subsidize low wage employees of companies like Walmart, all that is taxpayer money being used to socialize the losses of private industry, while all the profits remain private as these companies usually use any and all tricks to avoid taxes on top of being subsidies left and right.
Why is it that the US can spend $750 billion of tax payer money on war every year and no one bats an eye, but spending just a fraction of that on healthcare, education and other social services and everybody becomes concerned about "spending"?
This isn't a free market, this isn't even capitalism. This is just pure corporatism, in which the most powerful big money interests have enough political influence to make governments support their private business with taxpayer money.
And they also have enough control over the media to tell the dumb gullible people that this is the way it should be and everything else is like "Venezuela".
None of this is rational. We are in the process of destroying our global eco-system for short-term private profits.
This will go down in history as the biggest mistake humanity ever made.
Only 14k views... What a pity.
Definitely more than "more than half" today 😂
/watch?v=L478SB2uoOM There's way too much regulation, and it's the most American thing I can imagine to question it vigorously.
The goat 🐐
thanks for subscribing!
Good
Wow, what a clumsy interview -- a bunch of simple, largely disjoint questions. I love listening to MF's wisdom, but that interviewer is not my favorite!
Great answers but very ordinary questions
i don't understand why he says that "everybody condemn socialism, and yet in practice we moving down the socialist road", then he keep repeating he want people free and to let people do what they want...
if people would be free to do what they want then why not let them have socialism?
isn't this a bit contradicting in all he says?
to me it seems exactly like a totalitarian system, where he decide that liberty and being free is the most important thing to do, but yet in actuallity he doesn't want people to be free to choose (socialism).
i don't know maaaan...
for me to have a free society would be to ket peope decide whatever they want and who doesn't want that system just let them leave the country, that would be a free society.
He refers to a free market society. In a free market society we control the markets not the government. We have the choice what to buy, where to go, who to buy from, how much we buy, and what we decide is important to us, we will support. However, ina. Socialist society, government controls part of that. Government takes away part of that freedom. Socialists want to be free too, but yet they advocate the very thing that can take that freedom away from them. Governments. Take the lock down for example. The more government control, the more we aren't free to do what we want. Socialist want to give up part of our freedom to the government. But we all know that freedom is number 1. That's how the US was started. That's what our Constitutions is built for. To keep our freedom and limit government control.
Milton, was 1928 really the golden age (17:30m)?! I'm thinking that the New Deal wasn't simply thought up in 1932 but was a response--whether or not you think it a good one--to the capitalism's worldwide catastrophe of 1929.
Libertarians claim that the recession was worsened because of the new deal
Yes and also, the cause of the recession itself was a *failure of government* and the USA government today recognizes this
@@upstateNYfinest yh it was
@@upstateNYfinest yeah, cause it was
trying not to be boring here, but if you apply Friedman's data that the monetary base more than doubled from 1915 to 1920, as well as an increase of about 37 billion to about 57 billion from 1922 to 1928-29, with Hayek's theory of misalignment of goods capital by monetary expansion, this explains the depression.
The subsequent expansions of the New Deal prolonged the crisis and clearly did not fix the unemployment that only went down after the second war
¿Español?
Johnson Barbara Lopez Christopher Taylor Nancy
Milton Friedman is without a doubt the Paramount of Freedom. I say is because his teachings are immortal.
The reason we still move towards socialism is that we all realise we are equal in essence. We still need to realise we know as little as anyone else. Must say that in 1928 there were a lot less people. Increased population has caused many social problems, but what do I know?
Actually you know nothing
There is virtually no relationship between population and current social problems. The statistical correlation between amount of resources, emissions, wealth, anything, and total population is very weak. That argument was almost entirely debunked in the 80s after all the overpopulation arguments about unsustainable problems and fear of downward spirals were completely proven wrong when the trends reversed, when wealth, poverty, emissions, and wellbeing all improved despite population increase. You are just flat out wrong.
@@dr.dfargo2921 Yes I agree with you.
@@VincentWeisTheThirdI said 'what do I know' That means I might be right or wrong.
well then you realize wrong. One thing is equality before the law, another is equality of capacity, of skill, competence, and character. And in those we are not equal.
What is it you're saying that I have assumed? Tell me, then we'll both know. Furthermore, the idea that life is worse than when one was a boy is ludicrously common among people (tho not all) the further they are from the care-free days of youth. Do YOU wish this were 1928? You probably wish instead that the wonderful, wonderful years when u were between ages 1 and 21 could come roaring back. Unless u were born in 1907 the year 1928 probably doesn't represent the height of human happiness to you.
Replace "State" with unelected "Private Corporation" and we have the same thing!
We can also replace it with central bank.
Except they're held accountable by the market. And such things like bitcoin are entirely decentralized. They can't be tampered with.
It's not the same thing. Private corporations can be opted out of. They are subject to the voluntary buy in (or buy out) of their patrons. The state however has the power of legislation and fiat they can use to part you from your money. Huge difference sir.
@@maambomumba6123 some modern corporations are too big to fail, hence you are wrong
@@mnazaal only by the intervention of a government. Keep the government out of the market and no corporation is too big to fail. Not one. There are businesses that people thought would last forever. They are nowhere significant today or not in existence period. Market capitalism does that because of its inherent competitiveness. "Too big too fail" simply means a corporation should be protected from the competitive reality of the market.
I can't choose to become a lawyer!? (12:30m) Since when?! I may be forced to pass a qualifying exam, but how has that stopped a percentage of aspirants significant enough to justify what amounts here to an existential claim of the absolute loss of (a) freedom? Plus, can't I defend myself in court if I so choose? Not recommended, but permitted. The libertarian claim to be protecting us from slavery (or "serfdom) is passionately felt but poorly defended, invariably. Here and in Hayek.
By limiting the number of people in the profession it will artificially increase the cost of the service (supply and demand). Ik this doesnt seem like a problem now (mostly because law school and the bar exam are a joke), but if the govt decided to make it at all challenging to get barred this would happen again. This has also happened in industries like medicine, plumbing etc
21:15 His whole career was enabled by a government handout 🤣🤣 Its human nature to fight hard to get passed the gate. Then once you’re through, turn around and lock it
I don't see exactly how you can look at a man who both fought to end conscription and advocate for school voucher systems as someone trying to turn around and lock the door. He spent the better part of three decades fighting for better education through vouchers, charter schools, the benefits of which disproportionately help the poor and ethnic minorities. It's more like he jumped over the gate and tried to cut it open to let everyone else through.