These two ladies certainly were more ladylike than anything you'd find these days - No talking over, polite, not so much emotionalism, they have their reservations obviously but were entirely respectful and respectable.
As well as intelligent. It is quite fascinating to see women of that time to be granted an equal audience with one of the greatest economists of all time. How jealous I am.
The men in the Friedman discussions also seem more “ladylike”, as you would put it, than the men in public discussions today. Maybe the discussion climate was different back then. Or maybe there was just fewer public discussions published when distribution was way more costly and limited.
Samuel Lindblom perhaps youre right about the over exposure of unsavory altercations, though i doubt it, really. it may be likened to the over-coverage of violence and unrest of today with people concluding it is a less civilized world today than in the past, but we know this to be obviously untrue. but for people being less receptive to civil conversation and more likely to be closed minded, ignorant, annoyingly arrogant, and violent to opposing views (especially coming from far left individuals), i think it is a true phenomenon and not just something from a lack of coverage and exposure from the past. edit: word
Yes and no. New Zealand removed subsidies and their agriculture industry benefited and became more efficient. Farmers started producing fruits and vegetables that are naturally more profitable, rather than subsidy profitable. As a result, some production shifted abroad, but other increased locally. Agriculture is still very strong in New Zealand to my knowledge. There is an OECD case study about it - check it out.
That's interesting. You can't forget the benefits from having fewer taxes and, apparently, lower food prices. I don't claim to know which scenario is better, but I have to assume that there is some loss with subsidies.
I love it how quick he is into finding the best example and explain it in very simple ways. My point of view has gone through a U-turn ever since I started watching his videos. It is the only economist who makes perfect sense!
My country, Norway, is huge on governmental subsidies. Especially in agriculture, as the farmers are not even close to make a profit without it. Norway is long stretched, with little fertile land, because of all the mountains. And is scarcily populated as well. I believe the sentiment behind our subsidiary of agriculture, is to be less dependent on food import. If it works as inteded, though.. That is another question. Great video.
@Levis. H Why would they need big corporations? Norway is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. How would big corporations produce more food than they already do?
Dustin Stich If money is all you need for a profitable farm then Norway should have no problem, it is exceedingly wealthy. Are you seriously suggesting that all one needs to turn a profit in farming is more money?
Begs the question if the land is better suited for something else and you can import foods cheaper than subsidizing farmers to grow on the few plots of fertile land. Subsidies are tax dollars used to produce the food- so you are being taxed twice, three times if you have sales tax.
Farm subsidies have killed most of the single family farms. I had a dairy in Tillamook in the 1980s. I milked an average of about 75 cows. That size dairy is about gone now. As the film says, without an upper limit on subsidies investors have built 10,000 cow, or larger dairies. The cows aren't treated as well, they don't live as long, and they have less freedom. Some never see the outside. The cows are just a piece of equipment, if their milk volume goes down they go to the slaughter house. When I drive around dairy areas in the PNW, it's now rare to see milking cows. The same is true of grain or any other subsidized product. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
@@seapanda7887 hes right though, there is no such thing as a surplus in a free market, is supply exceeds demand at the current price that price falls until equilibrium is reached. The amount produced is always sold, and the right and most efficent amount is always produced. If supply falls short new farms will open to seize the opprotunity for profit. When you fix the price thats when the market fails, and you see dairy farmers dumping thousands of gallons of milk because they get paid for it no matter what.
Trump and all the nationalists populists need to listen to Milton Friedman on this tariff issue! Mark levin said this same thing on his show one night that although other countries impose tariffs on our products, two wrongs don't make a right. America still should not impose tariffs it WILL hurt a lot of industries!!!!
Its like mutually assured destruction. When both parties are using tariffs, then they both start to realize they would be better off with both of them dropping them. When only one party is using tariffs and the other suffers (due to business leaving the other country) because of that protectionism (which should be noted is enforced through the violent faculties of the state), then it is a wrong that must be met with appropriate force (in this case counter tariffs as one of many options).
I don't agree with him on everything, but in this he's absolutely right. I'm from Europe and the agriculture subsidies are the EU policy I disagree most with. It's bad for farmers, animal welfare, the taxpayers and even foreign countries, especially in Africa.
I can't think of anything I would disagree with him on. The negative income tax possibly but after comparing it to what we have now, the tax makes perfect sense. Get rid of the bloated and expensive bureaucracy overseeing the welfare state and just give the poor a check every week or month based on a percentage of what they don't earn. This would save the taxpayer enormously. Instead of a jobs program for overpaid, ineffectual government employees, we would have a much more efficient system that benefits the poor and lets them spend the money however they choose.
We don't need to be subsidizing. We need our government to get out of business. I ask anyone to name one instance of the government getting involved in business and making it better.
When developed economises subsidise their agribusiness, this impacts negatively on countries with traditional economies which rely more on agriculture. Put another way, giving money to rich agribusiness in developed countries costs poor people in developing countries their livelihoods.
Without government farmers would diversify their farms as a result they would be able to survive without a government. Furthermore a strategy to diversify with shade crops would keep the wind breaks (trees) necessary to help prevent the tornadoes they have in the Midwest.
Two things. 1. Subsidies only help the big and medium sized farms they do nothing for the small fries as those being subsidized lower their prices thereby driving out the small fries then buying up their failed businesses. 2. The two largest dairies in America have both declared bankruptcy in the last four years.
Agricultural economists know that free markets chronically fail for agriculture. Supply and demand don't balance out on either the supply or the demand side. Farms are only so big, and planting decisions are made far in advance, sometimes 9 months in advance, when purchases for planting are made. Farmers don't change what they plant much based upon prices. Consumer stomachs are only so big, so the vast majority don't change how much they eat much based upon prices. This was fixed in the New Deal by supply management and and minimum farm price floors, so that profits would be made on exports and sales out of farming states, (communities and farms). All big industry companies manage supply, but farmers are tiny and needed these programs. Congress reduced these programs, more and more, then ended them. Along the way of reductions, they started subsidies, but farmers always got paid less with subsidies than under adequate supply management.
We have future contracts or "futures" that offer that kind of system, that is selling something at a fixed price in the future. Airlines buy future contracts that guarantee a set price of fuel on a given day for a given amount.
Nice, Carola Mone did her under grad at UC Santa Cruz (liberaltopia) and eventually was disbarred in California. Maybe she should have listened to Dr. Friedman.
I suggested to subsides with technology to upgrade.. the farmers need to paid back by harvest and have to reach required standard of amount to it competitive in global market.
Problem is with agriculture is that it’s very long term by that I mean if you grow a crop it’s a years investment before you have any money,breed a cow it’s at minimum a year before you have a return. You now have very high capital investment costs for any return. Ask yourself this if you take all guaranties away from farmers who is going to risk everything on producing anything long term. Food is not like any other industry,we can do without everything you can imagine,but without food it’s over in a few weeks.
@Logan Miller I support traditional farming, meaning you have less than 75 acres (that's connected)you plant crops people actually need,etc. I teach a class in traditional farming, using my grandfather's farm as an example. 1.Gpa's land was CONNECTED,he never drove anything the size of a house across the county, running people off the road and causing havoc,in fact his tractors never touched pavement. 2. Gpa never once received free money from the govt,not once ever,I believe some call it " set aside money". Whatever you call it, it's free taxpayer money you didn't work for. 3. On those 74 acres Gpa had the following crops: 10 acres of sweet corn,5 acres of potatoes,2 acres of carrots,30 acres of wheat,2 acres of onions, approx 7-8 acres of oats,the rest was fruit trees. He did just fine and wasn't 3 million dollars in debt
@Logan Miller 60-65 percent of corn in this country goes to ethanol production,most of the remainder gets sent overseas. Soy beans get made into plastics and various other products,so at the end of the day corn and soy bean growers aren't feeding anyone. You speak of the economics of corn,I would argue industrial hemp is 25 times more profitable than corn and far less harmful to the soil.
If subsidies for agriculture were to be ended, would the resulting drop in prices cause much of the American agriculture industry to collapse and shift to other countries, thus making America a net importer of agriculture?
I think it would for a short time, but then the prices would slowly rise till they flattened out. With the free market prices go up and down depending on supply and demand. Look at the mandate for Ethanol. Corn that is used to feed live stock is taken away to make Ethanol and then mixed into to gasoline. The unseen consequence - Frederick Bastiat 'The Law' - is higher food prices due to the higher prices to buy corn to feed live stock..
"...and so the difference is precisely the subsidy that is paid to farmers now" I believe what Dr. Friedman is arguing here is that subsidies are simply buying up from farmers what national market isn't willing to buy, by taking that away what would happen is these unsold commodities might instead actually get sold on the world market to foreigners at the world price.
Friedman fails to point out that support raises farmland prices, so established operators can mostly out-bid outsider who want to have a go at the job. Support leads to less innovation - see the slow progress of no-tillage systems in some parts of the USA and europe and compare these with S America. As Practical Farm Ideas says, this support advantages nobody. It costs the taxpayer dear and takes tax money which could go on social, education and health issues; it inflates farm inputs, including fertiliser and machinery. It fails to address the real issues of farming which included degraded land, chemical and sewage run-off. And small farms actually produce more food per acre than do large ranches. All this for the dwindling farm vote, not just in America but across the western world that's propped up by politicians too afraid to ask why. Farmers might need help, but it is with educational initiatives like mine, not a boot full of cash. The NZers have seen and experienced the benefits.
As Friedman would have said, in comparison to what? Before NAFTA there was trade under a different set of rules. The question is, were those rules better or worse? Certainly it would be possible to reduce the rules, and I'd be in favor of that. Hopefully towards no rules at all.
Of course this is pre China most favored trade nation status. What about the portability of capital and the exodus of blue collar manufacturing to China? His free trade analysis assumes that another country sells “their” products and innovation not that our businesses would go there and produce with much cheaper conditions leaving the US with a deficit of good paying manufacturing jobs. Without tariffs or limiting regulation we have exported our economy and created the welfare state mess we are in now.
Just because all ducks are birds does not mean all birds are ducks. I said surpluses are either a result of government or error. I did not say that all error and government intervention results in surplus. Do you understand or shall I go on?
Kevin McMahon You can find videos of people living in the middle of places like NYC apartment buildings and they are getting paid not to grow things like corn in their window box. Think about that for a moment.
That was interesting. First girls point about people starving turned into a joke about farmers and she only gets to smile after that. I too had been worn down and didnt quite get the point about production but its unlikely to decline with subsidies? Ricardo talking about comparative advantage in trade mentions two crops like wine and corn and so one wonders if he is being satirical. But the two young ladies seemed smarter than any point i can make, let alone at their age.
This is the first time, I genuine disagreement with Milton Friedman. What he states in this video is good, but it is a narrow view of agriculture & international trade. The underlying issue with subsidies is monopolization. This occurs at the local, state, national and international level. An example, 1 cow imported from Canada tested positive for a disease, & Japan (#1 US beef consumer) used it as an excuse to stop all beef imports as leverage for a more favorable car trade agreement.
Unfortunately politicians (from both parties) have no interest in getting the government out of anything it already has its hand in because that would reduce their power and influence.
I highly recommend those of you that value capitalism and regard it as a necessary precondition for the full realization and enjoyment of freedom to join "The Capitalist Society" on Facebook; it is a group founded on enlightenment principles of reason, objectivism, and most importantly: capitalism.
@@dstblj5222Yes indeed the US does subsidize agriculture, that is because agriculture is one of the most automated processes in the world, that does not employ many people. Manufacturing is the problem, we need those low skilled jobs back in the US , so the unskilled people now on welfare can be offered the ultimatum of No Work no Welfare.
Milton's last statement was only half true. It is true that less tariffs help the world economy, even if it means they are one sided. The reason I say he is half wrong, is because the government that is recieving the tarrif revenue has no incentive to lower or eliminate their tariffs if they themselves are not facing tariffs. The best way to get countries to stop tarriffing your country, is to tariff them back.
@@CosmicValkyrie That is the same logic the french used with Hitler (obviously that was military action, not tariffs, but the same logic applies). The idea that another country will tariff us with no response is ridiculous. Why is it that when they tariff us it's ok, but if we tariff back it's a trade war?
@@randomkid7390 well you can talk to them about reducing the tariff instead of slapping on your own version. If you want to trade with a country, you don't want to be pissed off with each other. Countries generally try to balance the trade surplus/deficit as they're trading with a specific country. Usually things go somewhere with some negotiations, but if you just slap tariffs it's going to go nowhere. And the point is you want to sell your producer's products. That doesn't change. Farmers are going to be upset if their stuff isn't sold because the country you put tariffs on just decided to escalate the disagreement rather than negotiate it.
Does anyone know if we still do this today? I know the farmers are being subsidized because of the trade war with China but are they subsidized in normal times too? I hope not.
The animal ag industry is insane today. Factory farming is an abomination. Animal foods are artificially cheap. It costs less to get a burger and fries than a salad. And people wonder why their is an obesity epidemic.
It's not socialism, it's lousy government policy. Socialism is where the workers are in control of the means of production. You can have subsidies in a socialist or capitalist system.
If u r worried about starving people help starving people, not give tax money to people for being farmers. Theres tons of hungry homeless people while rich farmers get subsidies. There is an obesity epidemic, why would u care so much about keeping people in the farming bussiness. Supply of food will most likely meet demand as long as people can afford to buy enuf food to meet their demand for it and if its possible to supply it. Subsidies to farmers dont help with that, rather they can contribute to poverty by taxing lower income people and giving it to the rich, and make it harder for poor people to afford land to grow their own while rich farmers own so much subsidied farm land. End tax funded farm subsidies. Dont force tax payers to pay for animal agriculture, especially without their knowledge. Let them keep that money so they can choose to buy other products with it or spend it in a better way like helping the poor directly. End tax breaks to farms exsept those who grow healthy vegan food for human consumption exsept no large mono crops. Convince gov to let everyone have an acre of free tax free fertile land to grow a food forest on and live on. End mandatory school, ged and hsd requirements, age limits, minimum wage, and exsessive regs. People should be able to learn how to do a good job they want so they can afford a house and car before 18. For those who and whos parents can afford it, tax deductible chairty and or the about 180,000dollars spent on k thru 12 per student could pay for it and trash k thru 12 and some of that money could be used to promote more independence and healthy living.
Free, competative markets run lean. That makes them very efficient, but not very robust, which is okay for some commodities but very, very bad for others. Overproduction guarantees that everyone can eat in bad years as well as in good years. Competative forces will punish overproduction in good years, and lead to very expensive bad years in human terms as well as financial. People can't hold off on buying food when prices are high, eating is required for life. There may well be plenty of room for improvements in our policies, but getting rid of subsidies and hoping normal competative market forces will take care of such an inelastic product is foolishness. I laughed out loud when he said that's it's very unlikely that the farmers would starve. More people need to eat than just farmers, Milty! 😆😵
My boss is a 70 year old that worked for the Trudeau govment that brought about the subsidy on diary. We agruge every time it comes up but God bless leftist that can handle a argument.
They're actually greatly intelligent. I'd say more so than you. To be granted an audience with one of the greatest economists of all time is incredible.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
Why are these people not yelling at each other?
Because this was in the 80s before the time in which having opposing opinions meant you were morally bankrupt.
Robert Baillieul hahahaha
Jordan Moore and they are well respect scholars not ignorant dilettant panelists
Funny......When is someone going to call someone a racist?? lol
The days of civil conversation, I miss them dearly.
"Tyranny of the status quo." My, oh, my, how those words are resonating with me right now.
Uncle Miltie, we miss you badly.
Gentle Jesus bring him back!
End Welfare For Rich & Poor
These two ladies certainly were more ladylike than anything you'd find these days - No talking over, polite, not so much emotionalism, they have their reservations obviously but were entirely respectful and respectable.
It's obviously due to internalized misogyny.
Hahahahahahaha
As well as intelligent. It is quite fascinating to see women of that time to be granted an equal audience with one of the greatest economists of all time. How jealous I am.
The men in the Friedman discussions also seem more “ladylike”, as you would put it, than the men in public discussions today. Maybe the discussion climate was different back then. Or maybe there was just fewer public discussions published when distribution was way more costly and limited.
Samuel Lindblom perhaps youre right about the over exposure of unsavory altercations, though i doubt it, really. it may be likened to the over-coverage of violence and unrest of today with people concluding it is a less civilized world today than in the past, but we know this to be obviously untrue. but for people being less receptive to civil conversation and more likely to be closed minded, ignorant, annoyingly arrogant, and violent to opposing views (especially coming from far left individuals), i think it is a true phenomenon and not just something from a lack of coverage and exposure from the past.
edit: word
Yes and no. New Zealand removed subsidies and their agriculture industry benefited and became more efficient. Farmers started producing fruits and vegetables that are naturally more profitable, rather than subsidy profitable. As a result, some production shifted abroad, but other increased locally. Agriculture is still very strong in New Zealand to my knowledge. There is an OECD case study about it - check it out.
Sounds like you really just mean “no”.
The less government meddling with free market the better.
That's interesting. You can't forget the benefits from having fewer taxes and, apparently, lower food prices. I don't claim to know which scenario is better, but I have to assume that there is some loss with subsidies.
Aaaahhhh, .... Friedman.
I wish I could think as clearly as you always.
10 years before i was born. I missed out on good tv
I love it how quick he is into finding the best example and explain it in very simple ways. My point of view has gone through a U-turn ever since I started watching his videos. It is the only economist who makes perfect sense!
My country, Norway, is huge on governmental subsidies. Especially in agriculture, as the farmers are not even close to make a profit without it. Norway is long stretched, with little fertile land, because of all the mountains. And is scarcily populated as well. I believe the sentiment behind our subsidiary of agriculture, is to be less dependent on food import. If it works as inteded, though.. That is another question. Great video.
@Levis. H Why would they need big corporations? Norway is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. How would big corporations produce more food than they already do?
Dustin Stich If money is all you need for a profitable farm then Norway should have no problem, it is exceedingly wealthy.
Are you seriously suggesting that all one needs to turn a profit in farming is more money?
Begs the question if the land is better suited for something else and you can import foods cheaper than subsidizing farmers to grow on the few plots of fertile land. Subsidies are tax dollars used to produce the food- so you are being taxed twice, three times if you have sales tax.
Farm subsidies have killed most of the single family farms. I had a dairy in Tillamook in the 1980s. I milked an average of about 75 cows. That size dairy is about gone now. As the film says, without an upper limit on subsidies investors have built 10,000 cow, or larger dairies. The cows aren't treated as well, they don't live as long, and they have less freedom. Some never see the outside. The cows are just a piece of equipment, if their milk volume goes down they go to the slaughter house. When I drive around dairy areas in the PNW, it's now rare to see milking cows. The same is true of grain or any other subsidized product. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
That's sad... so even getting rid of the subsidies would help animal activists bc there would b no need for the massive over crowding of dairy cows...
Never thought about it that way - thank you for sharing the perspective, and I hope things will get better soon :)
Friedman is like a professional ball player playing novices; slowly but surely crushes all other thoughts with truths.
This man is the Robert Oppenheimer of Economics/Finance/Common sense
Andrew K. - he's the Milton Friedman of economics and common sense
No, he's the Milton Friedman of all the above
no other
Oppenheimer is the Milton Friedman of Theoretical Physics
There is no such thing as a surplus except as a result of entrepenurial error or government intervention
How do you define surplus?
@@karlo8176 Higher supply than demand
@@seapanda7887 hes right though, there is no such thing as a surplus in a free market, is supply exceeds demand at the current price that price falls until equilibrium is reached. The amount produced is always sold, and the right and most efficent amount is always produced. If supply falls short new farms will open to seize the opprotunity for profit. When you fix the price thats when the market fails, and you see dairy farmers dumping thousands of gallons of milk because they get paid for it no matter what.
@@devin19222 Yup and now they are incentivized to prefer quantity rather than the quality which as a result, decreases.
Could someone please seat the world leaders of the 2019 and have them watch this video?
Idiot!
"Even if they go in for tariff, we are better off not having tariff." Friedman
Brilliance and clarity.
These short clips are great.
Trump and all the nationalists populists need to listen to Milton Friedman on this tariff issue! Mark levin said this same thing on his show one night that although other countries impose tariffs on our products, two wrongs don't make a right. America still should not impose tariffs it WILL hurt a lot of industries!!!!
Trump doesn't WANT to, it's a threat. Unless other countries take down their import taxes and/or tariffs, I see no reason for Trump to have tariffs.
Its like mutually assured destruction. When both parties are using tariffs, then they both start to realize they would be better off with both of them dropping them. When only one party is using tariffs and the other suffers (due to business leaving the other country) because of that protectionism (which should be noted is enforced through the violent faculties of the state), then it is a wrong that must be met with appropriate force (in this case counter tariffs as one of many options).
I don't agree with him on everything, but in this he's absolutely right. I'm from Europe and the agriculture subsidies are the EU policy I disagree most with. It's bad for farmers, animal welfare, the taxpayers and even foreign countries, especially in Africa.
I can't think of anything I would disagree with him on. The negative income tax possibly but after comparing it to what we have now, the tax makes perfect sense. Get rid of the bloated and expensive bureaucracy overseeing the welfare state and just give the poor a check every week or month based on a percentage of what they don't earn. This would save the taxpayer enormously. Instead of a jobs program for overpaid, ineffectual government employees, we would have a much more efficient system that benefits the poor and lets them spend the money however they choose.
We don't need to be subsidizing. We need our government to get out of business. I ask anyone to name one instance of the government getting involved in business and making it better.
dispersing monopolies
Fi☪†i☯N The government is 99,99% the cause of bad monopolies.
Warmongering...they made that an amazing business. Oh and censorship...
When developed economises subsidise their agribusiness, this impacts negatively on countries with traditional economies which rely more on agriculture. Put another way, giving money to rich agribusiness in developed countries costs poor people in developing countries their livelihoods.
I agree; and free trade wouldn't require any agreement of the sort.
Looked into that Carola Mone girl b/c she looks like a friend of mine, apparently she died a few weeks ago of esophageal cancer RIP
Without government farmers would diversify their farms as a result they would be able to survive without a government. Furthermore a strategy to diversify with shade crops would keep the wind breaks (trees) necessary to help prevent the tornadoes they have in the Midwest.
Two things.
1. Subsidies only help the big and medium sized farms they do nothing for the small fries as those being subsidized lower their prices thereby driving out the small fries then buying up their failed businesses.
2. The two largest dairies in America have both declared bankruptcy in the last four years.
Agricultural economists know that free markets chronically fail for agriculture. Supply and demand don't balance out on either the supply or the demand side. Farms are only so big, and planting decisions are made far in advance, sometimes 9 months in advance, when purchases for planting are made. Farmers don't change what they plant much based upon prices. Consumer stomachs are only so big, so the vast majority don't change how much they eat much based upon prices. This was fixed in the New Deal by supply management and and minimum farm price floors, so that profits would be made on exports and sales out of farming states, (communities and farms). All big industry companies manage supply, but farmers are tiny and needed these programs. Congress reduced these programs, more and more, then ended them. Along the way of reductions, they started subsidies, but farmers always got paid less with subsidies than under adequate supply management.
We have future contracts or "futures" that offer that kind of system, that is selling something at a fixed price in the future. Airlines buy future contracts that guarantee a set price of fuel on a given day for a given amount.
DOWN WITH THE UNWELFARE STATE.
holy shit he is a genius at deflecting in a debate
Nice, Carola Mone did her under grad at UC Santa Cruz (liberaltopia) and eventually was disbarred in California. Maybe she should have listened to Dr. Friedman.
The government should get off of the economy and the more regulations and subsidies the worst the economy gets.
I suggested to subsides with technology to upgrade.. the farmers need to paid back by harvest and have to reach required standard of amount to it competitive in global market.
An alternative to price fixing for protecting an investment is to trade futures. The futures contracts stabilize prices.
Abolish the Department of Agriculture
No.
Milton Friedman - Should ... Be Subsidized?
NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :)
Problem is with agriculture is that it’s very long term by that I mean if you grow a crop it’s a years investment before you have any money,breed a cow it’s at minimum a year before you have a return. You now have very high capital investment costs for any return. Ask yourself this if you take all guaranties away from farmers who is going to risk everything on producing anything long term. Food is not like any other industry,we can do without everything you can imagine,but without food it’s over in a few weeks.
Plant something other than corn for once in your life
@Logan Miller I support traditional farming, meaning you have less than 75 acres (that's connected)you plant crops people actually need,etc. I teach a class in traditional farming, using my grandfather's farm as an example. 1.Gpa's land was CONNECTED,he never drove anything the size of a house across the county, running people off the road and causing havoc,in fact his tractors never touched pavement. 2. Gpa never once received free money from the govt,not once ever,I believe some call it " set aside money". Whatever you call it, it's free taxpayer money you didn't work for. 3. On those 74 acres Gpa had the following crops: 10 acres of sweet corn,5 acres of potatoes,2 acres of carrots,30 acres of wheat,2 acres of onions, approx 7-8 acres of oats,the rest was fruit trees. He did just fine and wasn't 3 million dollars in debt
@Logan Miller 60-65 percent of corn in this country goes to ethanol production,most of the remainder gets sent overseas. Soy beans get made into plastics and various other products,so at the end of the day corn and soy bean growers aren't feeding anyone. You speak of the economics of corn,I would argue industrial hemp is 25 times more profitable than corn and far less harmful to the soil.
If subsidies for agriculture were to be ended, would the resulting drop in prices cause much of the American agriculture industry to collapse and shift to other countries, thus making America a net importer of agriculture?
I think it would for a short time, but then the prices would slowly rise till they flattened out. With the free market prices go up and down depending on supply and demand. Look at the mandate for Ethanol. Corn that is used to feed live stock is taken away to make Ethanol and then mixed into to gasoline. The unseen consequence - Frederick Bastiat 'The Law' - is higher food prices due to the higher prices to buy corn to feed live stock..
06:40 This is not correct, is it? Without subsidies we would not be exporting as much, because it would not be profitable to produce as much.
No the argument is still coherent, you have to watch the whole argument again, go back to 06:09
"...and so the difference is precisely the subsidy that is paid to farmers now" I believe what Dr. Friedman is arguing here is that subsidies are simply buying up from farmers what national market isn't willing to buy, by taking that away what would happen is these unsold commodities might instead actually get sold on the world market to foreigners at the world price.
Milk cost 3$ now! Get rid of subsidies! Let milk drop to 1$
Friedman fails to point out that support raises farmland prices, so established operators can mostly out-bid outsider who want to have a go at the job. Support leads to less innovation - see the slow progress of no-tillage systems in some parts of the USA and europe and compare these with S America. As Practical Farm Ideas says, this support advantages nobody. It costs the taxpayer dear and takes tax money which could go on social, education and health issues; it inflates farm inputs, including fertiliser and machinery. It fails to address the real issues of farming which included degraded land, chemical and sewage run-off. And small farms actually produce more food per acre than do large ranches. All this for the dwindling farm vote, not just in America but across the western world that's propped up by politicians too afraid to ask why. Farmers might need help, but it is with educational initiatives like mine, not a boot full of cash. The NZers have seen and experienced the benefits.
As Friedman would have said, in comparison to what? Before NAFTA there was trade under a different set of rules. The question is, were those rules better or worse? Certainly it would be possible to reduce the rules, and I'd be in favor of that. Hopefully towards no rules at all.
Me (an agricultural engineer): *sees video title* OH HELL NO!
Yes we would become an importer if it is cheaper to import. Of course we could cut back the regulations that run up the cost of farming.
Word.
Of course this is pre China most favored trade nation status. What about the portability of capital and the exodus of blue collar manufacturing to China? His free trade analysis assumes that another country sells “their” products and innovation not that our businesses would go there and produce with much cheaper conditions leaving the US with a deficit of good paying manufacturing jobs. Without tariffs or limiting regulation we have exported our economy and created the welfare state mess we are in now.
Exactly...its nice getting a 5 dollar tshirt at waltart but if workers are underpaid and in poverty who cares.
Just because all ducks are birds does not mean all birds are ducks. I said surpluses are either a result of government or error. I did not say that all error and government intervention results in surplus. Do you understand or shall I go on?
K I
Go away idiot
Restore the law of supply and demand.
Carole Mone looks like Sandy Dennis
This video is a bit dated. Does anyone know if the farm subsidy program we have in place now is the same as we had back then?
its more similar than it should be. Obama tried to cut it but people got angry
Kevin McMahon
You can find videos of people living in the middle of places like NYC apartment buildings and they are getting paid not to grow things like corn in their window box. Think about that for a moment.
Meanwhile in EU farmer have to pay pay penalties if produce more milk than allowed...
That was interesting. First girls point about people starving turned into a joke about farmers and she only gets to smile after that. I too had been worn down and didnt quite get the point about production but its unlikely to decline with subsidies? Ricardo talking about comparative advantage in trade mentions two crops like wine and corn and so one wonders if he is being satirical. But the two young ladies seemed smarter than any point i can make, let alone at their age.
Two words.....Supply Management
What do you think of the common agricultural policy?
This is the first time, I genuine disagreement with Milton Friedman. What he states in this video is good, but it is a narrow view of agriculture & international trade.
The underlying issue with subsidies is monopolization. This occurs at the local, state, national and international level. An example, 1 cow imported from Canada tested positive for a disease, & Japan (#1 US beef consumer) used it as an excuse to stop all beef imports as leverage for a more favorable car trade agreement.
Scott Poet
Who are you?.. An economist? .. Didnt think so idiot
RAM TRUCKS not an argument
He didn’t tell about subsidies to industries..
Even loan wavers
The first line Lady made: she kept clear out of definitive solution to unknown problem. A stupidity people make so often today.
At what cost? So the taxpayer pays for what they don't need, and for what reason? Yes, supply and demand works.
The best thing that government could do, would be to get the hell out of business.
Unfortunately politicians (from both parties) have no interest in getting the government out of anything it already has its hand in because that would reduce their power and influence.
I highly recommend those of you that value capitalism and regard it as a necessary precondition for the full realization and enjoyment of freedom to join "The Capitalist Society" on Facebook; it is a group founded on enlightenment principles of reason, objectivism, and most importantly: capitalism.
Does any body else see Nurse Ratchet when they gaze upon the lady talking.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
No, agriculture should not be subsidized, but they would not have to be, if the US would demand reciprocal trade.
The us subsidizes agriculture far more then many other countries hence the creation of things like highfructose corn syrup
@@dstblj5222Yes indeed the US does subsidize agriculture, that is because agriculture is one of the most automated processes in the world, that does not employ many people. Manufacturing is the problem, we need those low skilled jobs back in the US , so the unskilled people now on welfare can be offered the ultimatum of No Work no Welfare.
Send this to Mr Donald Trump
a very clever man. much missed
Carter started this S#^&
They're a net importer of many things, so WTF?
Long live communism and freedom
Milton's last statement was only half true.
It is true that less tariffs help the world economy, even if it means they are one sided.
The reason I say he is half wrong, is because the government that is recieving the tarrif revenue has no incentive to lower or eliminate their tariffs if they themselves are not facing tariffs. The best way to get countries to stop tarriffing your country, is to tariff them back.
You want to start a trade war? That's how you start a trade war.
@@CosmicValkyrie That is the same logic the french used with Hitler (obviously that was military action, not tariffs, but the same logic applies). The idea that another country will tariff us with no response is ridiculous.
Why is it that when they tariff us it's ok, but if we tariff back it's a trade war?
@@randomkid7390 well you can talk to them about reducing the tariff instead of slapping on your own version. If you want to trade with a country, you don't want to be pissed off with each other. Countries generally try to balance the trade surplus/deficit as they're trading with a specific country.
Usually things go somewhere with some negotiations, but if you just slap tariffs it's going to go nowhere. And the point is you want to sell your producer's products. That doesn't change. Farmers are going to be upset if their stuff isn't sold because the country you put tariffs on just decided to escalate the disagreement rather than negotiate it.
@@CosmicValkyrie Yes, the president should explain that if they get rid if theirs he'll do the same. It's a negotiation.
I remember when Ronald Reagan "freed the cheese".
What program is this from?
Does anyone know if we still do this today? I know the farmers are being subsidized because of the trade war with China but are they subsidized in normal times too? I hope not.
they are, OBAMA tried to scale it down and it did not go well.
5:21 That girl has no idea what she's talking about.
women in the workplace is the true root cause of the socialism we are currently not enjoying.
somewhat dated but helpful for non initiate (me) to understand the overall effect of the subsidies.
The animal ag industry is insane today. Factory farming is an abomination. Animal foods are artificially cheap. It costs less to get a burger and fries than a salad. And people wonder why their is an obesity epidemic.
this is how the socialism creeping over
It's not socialism, it's lousy government policy. Socialism is where the workers are in control of the means of production. You can have subsidies in a socialist or capitalist system.
If u r worried about starving people help starving people, not give tax money to people for being farmers. Theres tons of hungry homeless people while rich farmers get subsidies. There is an obesity epidemic, why would u care so much about keeping people in the farming bussiness. Supply of food will most likely meet demand as long as people can afford to buy enuf food to meet their demand for it and if its possible to supply it. Subsidies to farmers dont help with that, rather they can contribute to poverty by taxing lower income people and giving it to the rich, and make it harder for poor people to afford land to grow their own while rich farmers own so much subsidied farm land.
End tax funded farm subsidies.
Dont force tax payers to pay for animal agriculture, especially without their knowledge. Let them keep that money so they can choose to buy other products with it or spend it in a better way like helping the poor directly.
End tax breaks to farms exsept those who grow healthy vegan food for human consumption exsept no large mono crops.
Convince gov to let everyone have an acre of free tax free fertile land to grow a food forest on and live on.
End mandatory school, ged and hsd requirements, age limits, minimum wage, and exsessive regs.
People should be able to learn how to do a good job they want so they can afford a house and car before 18.
For those who and whos parents can afford it, tax deductible chairty and or the about 180,000dollars spent on k thru 12 per student could pay for it and trash k thru 12 and some of that money could be used to promote more independence and healthy living.
👧
D
Free, competative markets run lean. That makes them very efficient, but not very robust, which is okay for some commodities but very, very bad for others. Overproduction guarantees that everyone can eat in bad years as well as in good years. Competative forces will punish overproduction in good years, and lead to very expensive bad years in human terms as well as financial. People can't hold off on buying food when prices are high, eating is required for life. There may well be plenty of room for improvements in our policies, but getting rid of subsidies and hoping normal competative market forces will take care of such an inelastic product is foolishness. I laughed out loud when he said that's it's very unlikely that the farmers would starve. More people need to eat than just farmers, Milty! 😆😵
My boss is a 70 year old that worked for the Trudeau govment that brought about the subsidy on diary. We agruge every time it comes up but God bless leftist that can handle a argument.
Women...
They're actually greatly intelligent. I'd say more so than you. To be granted an audience with one of the greatest economists of all time is incredible.
Haha, he destroyed her brain.
This is racist
and sexist
and homophobic
and Islamophobic
and transphobic
and xenophobic
Milk cost 3$ now! Get rid of subsidies! Let milk drop to 1$
Or cheaper. You wouldn't even need food stamps