N Mil If you get more leftist memes that just shows who your friends are. I find the right to be more toxic, especially the talk show hosts. It's all anecdotal though and not scientific. What does Orlando have to do with anything?
I prefer that fools are outed as fools, and if fools name-call, then let them make that mistake. Vulgarity and daftness hidden behind pseudo-intellectual tripe are qualities that are hard to out. "don't interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake." is something Napoleon Bonaparte said, and I think he was right about that.
+todd dyer because they're the ones that will be running he country. If the current establishment was this civil and well composed, no matter how wrong, when they were in school, what the hell will the safe space generation act like when it's their turn?
"Society does not have goals. People have goals." And this is where liberals and classical liberals really conflict. The recognition of the responsibility of the individual.
Excuse me but I think you misplace equality with equity. The surest way to have equality is to let people take responsibility for themselves. And yes, freedom is on the chopping block for statists. Just look at the "regulation" of *unalienable* human rights listed in the bill of rights. I.e. 2nd amendment and 1st amendment. SJWs love to go after those.
Only if you ignore the fact that some people oppress others. Some people do bad things. This is where we need government to step in and defend individuals. IF people were morally and ethically correct, then your individualist argument would almost make sense. As it stands, you ignore oppression and the fact that we all depend on others.
Alexander G Well that's a fine use of words, but if you look at it more closely you are comparing apples and pears. Society in itself is nonexistent outside of people's minds. It is a concept made by the people. It does not belong to the external reality. And since the people made the society don't the people's goals project to the "societiy's" goals? Society also doesn't have a sense of justice but there are still police and courts. This is all a process, of course, but in my view, perhaps the society, meaning government and its institutions, should be dismantled in the end.
+Your logic is flawed. You have to remember conservatives/libertarians only have rhetoric, but they don't have logic on their side. These two men predicted the Pell Grant Program being cut would cause high student debt that would be unaffordable. Present day: $1.1 trillion debt and that Millennial's are now weighed down by the student loans debt.
+Your logic is flawed. So, you're pretty much a mob rule kind of person, then? You value the collective over the individual. Not every one shares the same goals. Everyone individual has different goals they wish to achieve.
+Chris Parker So, you've figured out my life philosophy based on that single comment, then? I'm not a 'rule' kind of a person. I just think there are no immediate answers , and there needs to be a process and it has to be gradually refined and perfected. My previous comment was just a comment on that particular sentence, not the whole socialism vs capitalism thing. cheers
+Your logic is flawed. Friedman's point is that you can't lump "society" together as if everyone has the same goals or should have the same goals. People have their own goals and society through the market will determine which one is best as the ones that everyone supports with their actual money, rather than rhetoric, are the ones that have actual utility to society at large. It's like saying society needs education and using that as justification to subsidise college courses that result in no benefit to the rest of society.
Milton was such a good debater. He always got the other side to agree with something he said, and once they agreed they started thinking of their methods and why they agreed. You can literally see people making the connections in their brain when they talk to him.
This was great to watch. People having civilized discussions, exchanging ideas and learning from, or at least listening, to each other, nobody assumed the other side had evil intentions. Very refreshing.
+Adam Ex And, due to this interview, a conservative columnist at that: 'Brooks describes himself as having originally been a liberal before, as he put it, "coming to my senses." He recounts that a turning point in his thinking came while he was still an undergraduate, when he was selected to present the socialist point of view during a televised debate with free-market economist Milton Friedman. As Brooks describes it, "[It] was essentially me making a point, and he making a two-sentence rebuttal which totally devastated my point. That didn’t immediately turn me into a conservative, but ....” '
Christopher Hayes Also from Wikipedia "In a March 2007, article published in The New York Times titled "No U-Turns",[60] Brooks explained that the Republican Party must distance itself from the minimal-government conservative principles that had arisen during the Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan eras. He claims that these core concepts had served their purposes and should no longer be embraced by Republicans in order to win elections."
For the most part, yes. That's typical of college students facing a professor who, as they quickly realize, has already heard everything they'll say, and thought about it in far more depth. Though you also see the worst student in the room full of confidence.
Because he’s bullying them around. The model T has jack shit to do with higher education. Analogies have no place in trying to prove a point that is completely unrelated.
The guy in the huge glasses being school by Prof. Friedman is David Brooks, currently a New York Times columnist. Wonder what he thinks today about his performance is this discussion?
It is so rare in the media these days to see an older, white man being allowed to talk rationally without being shouted down or callously ridiculed. I don't agree that higher education shouldn't be subsidized by government but Friedman presents his arguments well. Why don't we see these sort of discussions anymore. Why were the likes of Friedman replaced by people like Bill Maher in such televised debates?
I think the dishonesty from the media and politicians has produced an unrealistic, negative, oppressive image of big business and governments which has caused a diminish in respect for public figures and voices of authority, especially those with opposing views.
Just read this comment 7 years later and laughed out loud. Did you miss the part where he made the argument that the invention of computers doesn’t benefit society?
"Society benefits when people are educated" The problem with this justification is that is too nebulous to mean anything. Just about anything can be said to be of a benefit to society. This is how we as taxpayers have been duped into paying for sports stadiums, whether or not we actually attend.
Milton Friedman is a hero of mine. So rational and logical in defense of classical liberalism. I live half a world away and never met him, but like when Hitchens died, I was actually sad.. even momentarily depressed. These are great men and humanity needs more of them!
Friedman is mainly asking that these guys just be consisten! I think this issue is debatable, but none of the respondents offered anything more than self-contradictory rhetoric. Although, at least all parties showed a measure of respect and restraint, as an intellectual debate should.
Yeah I noticed that too.... I get the impression that if I were to write down the implications of each statement of the respondents then I'd have found somewhere a contradiction, perhaps not such an obvious one, but it would become clear after taking a moment to sort it out
It's very Socrates esque. Challegning all their statements and make them rethink Socratic method is such a fantastic method of debating. Best way to change someone's mind imo
What I also noticed is that he uses an all or nothing argument style, which isn't really how things work. He says "well, it did/didn't work in this case, so therefore all cases should be treated the same." That's just not how things work in a complex system, and I bet he knew that, but to win his arguments he carefully skipped over that part.
@@alangroskreutz235 but Milton is not that good of a debater. he is an influential economist for sure. and a good lecturer, but not very good in debate settings.
@@alangroskreutz235 His argument is no more all or nothing than theirs. The main issue is "you support x, so why don't you support y under the same conditions; how are these conditions different?"
This really really really annoys people. But Friedman is right! The the UK, labour made university available to "all". Lots of my friends went to university with dirt cheap tuition. Universities created courses for those without the academic intellect, film studies, history of film... I have friends who have done these economically useless degrees! If universities can make money by increasing access, they will increase access to get more subsidy by lowering standards of education to allow more people in. I had a vocational training route, have about 6 more years of work than all of my friends, and they are stuck working jobs that previously didn't require degrees, but now do- but pay no more than before. So they have student loan debts and no wages to pay them off! Making degrees payable by the student makes sense, only allows people to choose economically viable degrees and increases its value over time
I massively disagree. I would never take a debt to go to university, but the state finances it for me. Why? Because I will pay it back several times anyways by income tax. Why should I take the risk and the state takes the profits? If I was american, I'd go to the army to make them pay my education and.. uhh.. wait .. how many americans do this exactly like that? sorry for the lingual mistakes, did not use my english for a longer period of time.
Laaaaaber7311 Actually what you are saying isn't correct. In the United States, education is the responsibility of the states (I am not saying the federal money in no way finds a way into the system, but for the most part it doesn't). State income tax levels tend to be significantly lower than the federal income tax for obvious reasons. This is assuming the state actually has an income tax as well. Secondly, you speak of risks. If you see it as a risk, then you are well aware that there is a chance you would make less profit from your education than the cost of the tuition. This invalidates your argument that you will pay it back in taxes. There are plenty of people who get college degrees that bring them very little, if any economic benefit. Why should someone else pay that for them? If you still disagree, what schools should get funding (we know there will be a limited amount of funds raised from taxation)? How should it be distributed? What degrees options should you have access to? Who should qualify? This is the danger of letting a group of people run your life for you. They cannot manage your life for you anywhere near the level you can.
I realize this comment is several years old, but we were just discussing this the other day. I agree, I think we were more educated prior to 2000. Look at the extensively broad level of knowledge or people like Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin etc. back when printing presses were a rarity and you couldn't drive over two Barnes and Noble or order a delivery on Amazon, but had to travel the earth to find certain books. Yet those folks had a level of education that seems to surpass the depths of today's "intelligentsia" by miles.
Milton Freidman reminds me of Yoda in Star Wars. The force is strong in him, and he represents the good side of the force. I want to become a Jedi Economics Master of Freedom like Milton Freidman.
People have goals for society though. E.g. I would prefer if the people I had to live with in my country had at least some form of education. Or to have a working Police and Healthcare system if I ever needed that.
Societies are collections of people. It could be argued that these people share enough goals to allow the coherent idea of societal goals to exist. For example, I have a goal to be in a position that, no matter what happens, I will be able to afford health care. I would also like, as a moral Human being, for the same treatment to be afforded to everybody in the society in which I live. Enough people in this country (UK) aspired to this goal and it is currently benefiting our society as the NHS (National Health Service). Any attempt to change this system, to replace it with a profit driven corporation would result in those in power being ousted. Friedman is what I would call a "militant individualist" and I can understand how he could logically arrive at the conclusion that society does not have goals.
Friedman’s intellect and store of facts is orders of magnitude beyond these college kids (who are also clearly smart). The fact he’s able to remain calm and non-frustrated is so refreshing. And the kids know they’re outmatched, but are still respectful and engaged. What happened to this type of productive intellectual discourse? Can we as a society regain this?
Don't be ignorant of the fact that you depend(ed) on others. Secondly, don't ignore that others have heavier burdens that cannot be easily dismissed with platitudes.
My comment is related to your comment (and it's implied ignorance with regard to the individual's dependency on society) (and indirectly addresses the video's topic about how much society should support individual education). If people were not willfully ignorant about how much they depend on others, they would have no problem (cutting the military budget and) funding education.
That's something basic and I didn't need to mention, I am not that dummy :) College is an "option", not a need, you don't have to go to college. College is another brainwashing institution especially these days anyway. And you can always go to college later in life, that's one of the best options you can choose in the US. In the country where I am from is super hard to go back to college later in life for many reasons. Also like Milton said during the debate, would you agree that the government subsidizes every business?
I mean... I would 😂 his arguments in this are effective for his time period, but they aged like milk. His reference to China not having any Henry Fords is no longer relevant as they're now seemingly a miracle economy poised to outpace the US, and we see the question of how government can subsidize education, without giving solely to high earning families answered in innovative market socialist economies throughout Europe. Everyone talks about the Nordic countries, but Germany is probably the example with the most innovation tied to it that makes college free for all, thus allowing all incomes levels a chance to pursue their interests. Milton can't be blamed though, who could possibly have anticipated all these developments?
@@econometrics469 chinas economic progress is no miracle. They simply adopted free market economic policies while maintaining their communism in their fiscal policy. From where I stand, they basically said "they look at what Hong Kong are doing! Let's copy them"
@@johnclaffey7478 they also subsidize higher education. A topic on which I'd be ecstatic to debate Milton Friedman. Capitalist principles work, when paired with policies that reduce inequality and fund a strong social safety net (China isn't the best example of that, but they're an example of what you can accomplish with active but rigidly restrictive markets)
Friedman's genius is also his weak point. Most people just want government to have good intentions as a policy regardless of the actual effects. It's extremely difficult to persuade people who have no education in economics to support these deeply thought out and nuanced stances which Friedman holds.
+TheAceHD Milton Friedman said, "My parents were living way below the poverty line, but I was able to work my way through college." 1. His parents were middle class2. He took advantage of the Federal Government Pell Grant Program3. The State of New Jersey gave him a full ride to Rutgers.Can you say liar? Yes, he was a major one.. These two men predicted the Pell Grant Program being cut would cause high student debt that would be unaffordable. Present day: $1.1 trillion debt and that Millennial's are now weighed down by the student loans debt.
Liell Onawe Your statement is funny. how can you FORCE people to be free. Freedom is about letting people decide based on their own preferences are removing coercion and force from the system
This man is a genius. Look at the bailout of the auto industry recently. The govt spent billions bailing out auto companies "too big to fail". Good, right? Ford did not take a bailout and they seem to be doing just fine.
Oh my gosh that was David Brooks!! I love how he's supposedly the supposedly "conservative voice" on PBS; here he's talking about how great corporate and personal welfare is. Some things never change.
Not only was Friedman a genius but his knowledge in many different fields and areas is vast. He is intellectually schooling these guys. They talk in general terms of fairness and benefit to society. Friedman talks in terms of detailed facts, history, and irrefutable logic and reason. I am thoroughly entertained.
Great to see civilised debate! I think the students, for the most part, were arguing for equality of opportunity! Should the state facilitate this or not? Further discussion in the nuances would be welcome!❤️
The elite dont want the masses actually thinking about this stuff and being able to construct good arguments against that which fucks them over yet enriches said elites.
Hard to find many sources that consistently put out open discussion material beyond John Stossel and Dave Rubin. Other than those 2 you can occasionally stumble across a panel debate, even then there's often someone on the panel who tends to resort to inflammatory rhetoric.
That black dude says he and many people do think it's very important for black people to be financially supported to go to college. Then by all means donate to those black people! Nothing is stopping him for god sake, why does he have to make everybody else, including people who don't share his views to do what he wants?
+yamahaU3 He meant going to college for people in general. The Pell Grant Program which is what is being debated here covered 73% of the cost of college. Allowing students not to have what is a $1.1 trillion debt and burden the economy as it has been.
Yes, I understand that, but my argument is that while paying somebody's college tuition is a very noble cause, people shouldn't be coerced to do so. Ask yourself, suppose you are out fundraising for a bright but poor chap who can't afford college, it is indeed a very noble deed, but does that give you the right to loot people or force them to pay up?
yamahaU3 It doesn't give you the right because you don't have the proper authority. If society agreed to give you the authority, then by definition you would have the right. So your example doesn't hold water. You're approaching education as if it's a charity. The government is not supposed to be for charity, so of course you'd disagree, but that's the wrong approach. People who support free education look at it as a net benefit to the economy. As the economy grows, therefore, it benefits all of us, including you. It would be considered an investment with an expected return. The debate should be about if that is the most efficient way to generate that economic growth.
Exactly society gave him "the right" to make decisions on behalf of the people who elected him and we do the same thing here. They make the WRONG decisions many times!
One more thing, colleges who are subsidized by the govt. hike their tuitions and these days colleges are gauging the people who go to college to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars!!! Govt. intervention has led to this problem!
Milton had already foreseen today's problem back in the 80s'. There are lots of college grads are not really taking time to learn their major but think their degree is the guarantee their future and make themselves and their families in debts. After bailing the banks, another crsis is to bail these college grads debts.
My education was 100% paid for by the American tax payer !!!, as was every other GI who served in our military. I think that should be the standard for government/tax payer support for higher education. We put fourth effort, and received benefit for that effort, we paid it forward !!! I could have never afforded to go to college with out the GI education bill, my parents were just middle class, and I was a less than stellar student, yet four years of service, and maturity improved my scholastic ability to became a straight A student. The tax payers were repaid massively, by my taxes paid, because of my greater income, over simply being another High School Graduate. What ever is given to a person unearned, is always unappreciated, and un deserved !!! What is earned by personal effort is not only truly earned, but long appreciated. Tim
Visda58 I belive is because he do not see the issue as a moral/emotional issue, he look it whit a cold head numbers and figure. However Im still thinking there is a middle point between milton and free education, im sure of that.
eugene doyle Although he may not have made it here, I think his moral argument would be best summed up in the phrase "free to choose". Incidentally the title of his famous video series.
Milton sounds here like a bigoted liberal who can't see that investing in education is more important than investing in defense and roads ...etc .. The main difference between developed/advanced and backward countries is the development and use of the potential talent of their individuals .. through education .. Now , i don't know his opinion in primary education .. but if he has to be consistent in his thinking he must also refuse that govetnment fund public schools ..
I believe that free education would 1st increase human capital as a driving factor of long-term economic growth and 2nd also close the gap of income inequality. Since the level of income depends on demand and supply, free education could result in a higher supply of college jobs. This would of course correlate with lower incomes for college jobs and therefore an increasing demand for non-college jobs. As a result, the gap of income inequality could get smaller.
Yea, but then you'll have to pay them back with interest. That or, since you could afford it, you don't deserve any help. Nowadays equality is nothing. Equity is the new trend
cristi neacsu how about you realize you get a free education which is a high school diploma. Now you’re an adult and if you want added education that’s on you to be responsible to take care of it yourself or join the military or go get a trade education or go to work. I bought a Toyota instead of a BMW because that’s what I can afford. You just think you should get a BMW for free because that’s what you want. I agree that student loans should be interest free, but free, no
No he didn't. For example he asked: should the government have subsidized Henry Ford since what he did was for the public good? There's two main flaws to that argument. First: the inventions of Ford aren't all the public good there is. There are other kinds of public good and the laws that apply to those kinds may be different to those that apply to the type of public good that Ford provided. The second point is that indirectly, the government did support Ford. He drew on inventions of others that were often publicly educated, most notably mr. Benz. He also made use of publicly educated personnel.
Friedman was a well paid corporate hack. He paved the way for the corporate takeover of america where corporations and billionaires now control the government and every aspect of society.
John they don’t control the government. The government has indirectly helped them, creating monopolies and allowing certain individuals to set the price system. Friedman did not set the stage for this. It is a myth to believe that corporations have taken control of our society and the government has had little to no control over their actions. The government has managed essentially all of their actions.
Stop using the word "Fair"! I'm so sick of hearing, "That's not fair!". That's third grade nonsense. The sooner you come to realize that life isn't fair the better off you'll be.
+John Orlowski Yes but you can propose the vision of society and morality that suits you and within those perimeters declare things to be either fair or unfair.
+MrDarudin Exactly if life truly isn't fair one would have to ask why stealing would be wrong after all it is inevitable that life will not be fair. We create are own idea of what is fair in society
+treklik Fairness and morailty have nothing to do with one another. We should focus on what is moral, not fair. It's not fair that some people are short and some are tall. But it is important if the way we collect taxes for example is by initiation of force, which IS imoral. Things can be unfair, but are they imoral? If the answer is yes, then there lies a problem.
treklik Yes, but if you can rally a majority of the electorate behind you in a constitutional democracy this will allow you to shape society as long as it stays within the limits of that constitution.
100 years ago a high school diploma was equivalent to today's bachelor degree. People who did 12 years of grade school were much more educated than today's high school grads. But in any case I see no reason why taxpayers should be forced to pay for ANY education. Parents and private charity are the proper way to finance education.
+Drew Brown There was no straw man involved. Friedman gave the young men statistics that disproved their assertion that government assistance provides the most equity, to which one young man responded "That's not fair. I don't know how I'd fix it, but I wouldn't scrap the whole system." Friedman then responded that the system was regressive. There was no point to refute. Having established his position and refuted the claims of the young men, Friedman shifted the topic to the general concept of welfare and asked why their views were so contradictory. Friedman never stated that just because the young men don't believe in corporate welfare that they shouldn't believe in welfare for students (though I'm sure he believes that the views are contradictory).
Really amazing to see people with totally contrasting opinions debate civilly without attaching labels to each other in order to disregard their opinions.
The level of the discussion is high it makes me wonder when was it that society crossed the point of no return in the ability to communicate efficiently and in a civilized manner.
When women became the majority of the voting bloc. We call such a view misogynistic, but I don't really care about the ists, isms, and istics here. It is simple the case that men have a basic respect and admiration for rationality and logic where women, on the whole, do not. The entire SJW leftist movement has at its core anti-rationalist post-modernist theory that literally advocates feeling and belief over rationality and objectivity. Further, since men have always been the ones to go to war when agreements could not be hashed out, they have way more incentive toward civility and settling disagreements via persuasion. Women have a certain disregard for such things because they don't suffer the consequences of it as harshly, so they tend to feel free to be aggressive knowing society will protect them instead of punishing them for their aggression as society does men.
Another problem is people will do useless degrees like Art, Liberal Arts and social studies. Introduce a Voucher system, for primary and secondary education and let people save.
I have to disagree with you, there is no such thing called useless degrees, Art, Social Studies they exist for a reason. In a society, there must be different kinds of people who specialize in different things, which contributes diversity, diversity is so valuable in our society because it expose us to all kinds of beauty. What our society would look like if we only have engineer, accountant, and economist left, who is gonna do the art work? who is gonna design the appearance of iPhone? I feel sad that nowadays Liberal Arts and Social Science are so underrated, and think we could solve every problem mathematically, wrong......
+ZachariasCatIV It seems like if people in their 20's with certain college degrees that have little or no practical value are complaining about their low wages; they are probably the type of people who have been complaining their whole lives. All college degrees are not equal; therefore their value in society is not equal. An economic market; whether in a republic such as ours, or a communist state, is guided by supply and demand. Take for instance doctors. Historically they have made good salaries and the profession has a high level of esteem from the people? Why? Because there is a huge demand for medicine and medical care in general. Also, it is difficult to become a doctor; therefore the numbers of doctors are limited because not everyone has the work ethic or desire to go through 8 years of college. Now consider the person who obtains a degree in Humanities for example. Are 330,000,000 Americans going to pay more to hear a lecture on ancient Babylonian fertility dolls; or are they going to pay more to a doctor for life saving medicine?
"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul". government assistance is a crutch for people and business'/industries that can't survive in the free market. if you choose(key word here) to become educated and practice business in a field that doesnt pay well, you have no right to demand (which is what government enforcement is) that others (taxes come from productive people) pay you for situation which is a result of your choices.
Carla Denes Well statistically speaking white women and women in general perfer white men(specifically white Chad) then Asians, then Hispanics. I think you've been watching to much BET.
"The assumption is that there are people who are giving and not receiving in return." That's not an assumption, just a fact. Everyone is paying for these people who will eventually *potentially* become lawyers, doctors, etc. to become that. But only the upper classes will be able to afford them once they do. Or, those at the bottom may (eventually) get government assistance granting them access to some of these services but many in the middle class will not gain access either way. And of course this isn't to speak of the courses we have today, many of which don't benefit anyone at all.
The main issue is whether something is voluntary or coerced. If someone believes more black people should go to college, they should donate to scholarships. They would even be more free to donate to an individual they believe in or who has the skin color they prefer. Those who don't believe that shouldn't be threatened with jail time and fines. Everyone is free to give all their stuff to their neighbors and start a commune and try to live out socialism with their neighbors. No one should be forced to do so.
I had the feeling that not many people grasped what milton was really trying to say here. At any rate, i have a lot of respect for him and every other individual at that debate, very few interruptions, respectful, and no name calling!
Friedman is by far the easiest to understand amongst Austrian giants. You cannot however expect a country of people who barely speaks their primary language to understand logic as language is the building block for thought.
He's the false priest that tried to justify capitalism through obscure myths about "economics" & human nature, just like the false priests that tried to justify slavery & feodalism through obscure myths about religion & human nature
Universities and colleges do not make Henry Fords. Also to Milton’s point about why government should subsidize businesses in the same way education is subsidized I would say that the funding of education directly contributes to business, which is also funded plenty. Post secondary education is designed to create good, reliable employees that businesses can utilize confidently and invest in.
Universities may not produce Henry Fords. They did produce, however the men that Ford needed to build a company and the men on whose inventions Ford drew. Edit: maybe I should learn to read the complete post before commenting. It looks like I just repeated your point.
I'm in insane student loan debt. This is all because the government gave out a student loan program. Once the universities saw that working class people were going to get a lot of money, they were like "hey! Let's jack up the price!" Then they spent all their money on making their universities look like palaces so they can draw in all these students. They also lowered the qualifications to draw in more people, and pay their graduate students peanuts to teach courses professors with tenure, meanwhile all the professors are making six figures. It's a mess. If I could go back in time I would have learned French and went to a small French college. Tuition there is cheap and the payoff is valuable.
We are less educated per capita in America compared to European countries, yet we destroy them in the marketplace. In fact, the facts state that less dependent we are as a society to have something "free" given to us, the harder we work to overcome that. Therefore, those who do not value education, work harder, creating a more vibrant economy. Not everyone is designed for higher education. More education does not equal marketplace superiority.
A government is put in place to have goals, if they dont they are not doing what they were meant to.as tax payers we are all entitled to get a statement of what the government is doing with our tax money but we dont.The government is run often by power hungry people.
Should military and wars be subsidized by taxpayers? NO. Should higher Education be subsidized? YES. As a society what is our priority, war or education? Today we live in a highly technological dependent society in which majority of people living have no idea how those technology works. We need more engineers, scientists, and doctors, not soldiers. The more educated individuals are, the more they can become productive in society.
+Super Capacitor The case for subsidizing military is far stronger. Without protection from violators, there are no rights of any kind. Without rights, there is no freedom. Without freedom, there is no education, only indoctrination.
fzqlcs Yes I agree a nation needs protection and defense. BUT today we spend more money in military than the next seven countries combined. The military industrial complex thrives on FEAR of the citizens, they are the ones who are indoctrinating us.The mainstream media always talk about terrorists and promote fear mongering tactics, so that its citizens will blindly agree to spending on war and weapons, in the name of "security." Why not reduce our military by half and invest that money in educating our citizens so that they can invent new technologies that can improve our lives, instead of learning how to blindly obey, hold guns and participating in murder and destruction. Makes no sense.
+Super Capacitor I agree with much of what you say. Too much spent on military and spent unwisely. We need a strong, but focused military that is only used to degrade a threat and then come home, not attempt to reshape the Middle East in a western image. Education is important, so much so that it should not be left to government. Parental choice. For both reasons, Rand Paul 2016.
fzqlcs *"The case for subsidizing military* *is much stronger."* That's like saying your muscles are more important than your brain. Yes. having a good strong military makes you tough. But having no education makes you stupid. The brain can exist without muscles but the muscles cannot exist without the brain. We need educated citizens that can think for themselves, and be well educated in the field of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), because we are a technological dependent society.
fzqlcs Rand Paul...eh. Ron Paul was much better in IMO whom I supported back in 2012. I think Bernie Sanders right now is the best candidate. He's not a bought-out politician and speaks the truth just like Ron Paul.
I think Friedman goes too far when it comes to limited government. However, he is one of the great minds of the 20th century and as our nation progresses his views on monetary policy have come true. Love listening to him speak as well and he is a formidable debater.
As a British person reading these comments, I am always incredibly amazed by how much further to the right the USA is on social and economic issues than the rest of the developed world
That explains a lot of the continual US economic growth over a long period compared to the majority of the world. Sadly in the early 2000s (due to federal government and FED policy) this turned a corner and it went from a production society to a debt driven society, propped up on stilts which are quickly becoming very unstable. Housing, student and general consumer debt make the 08 crash look like it had just won the lotto in comparison.
@@bhough410 US economic growth is due to many factors, but it being a far right political entity is not one of them; the far right aspect simply means the US's wealth is concentrated among very few individuals, the average citizen is far worse off than their European contemparies. Factors for the US continued economy; country founded on genocide of native population with no realistic nearby enemies, giving the US uncontested access to vast natural resources. Slavery. Post-WW2 destruction of every other major empire and advanced economy, allowing the US to snowball to its current position as dominant empire and economic power.
@@bhough410, and, in fact, that 'corner' into a debt-driven society was turned in the 1970s, though it did not become noticeable until the late 1980s, when the U.S. found itself swimming in a pool of red ink as a result of the Reagan Administration's (successfully run?) arms race with the Soviet Union (which bankrupted and ended it). That 'red-ink pool' became a lake with the 2007-2010 financial/economic crisis, and now with the global pandemic, it's a sea.
School and university are free here in Germany.If you are dead-broke,your child can still get a higher education.The system is quite well-functioning in this country.
@@tazokakabadze3828 your non answer is answer enough. A secondary problem is the devaluation of higher education. Which ultimately has the same effect that every subsidy seems to have.
@@walidaichi2927 Highest ranking Nazi officials were pretty god-damn smart on IQ scale and highly educated in academic matters,but they were still immoral,depraved human beings.So what is your point?Just because you are smarter and more educated doesn't mean you enjoy more moral things.
i do support mr friedman ideas but i do appreciate the two guy that were questioning his ideas, this was a very productive conversation and is no nice to see people with different opinions talking in a very civilized way.
OK. I am somewhere in the middle with this and I can't understand how some people commenting can be absolutely certain of their position. For me that's the number 1 sign of stupidity (absolute certainty on complex issues). It is certainly a very complex issue, but there are things in which theories such as game theory give us a nice explanation on why government may be helpful in some cases. For instance, if you tell any individual to contribute to build roads with the proper logistic nuances etc. most people will have no incentive to do so because their contribution helps everyone and nobody wants to be the "sucker" from which others leech from, that is called a Nash equilibrium. The Nash equilibrium in this case is suboptimal because everybody is worse off because nobody has incentives to move on their own. Education is different from building businesses because the incentive for the owner is clear (profit) and clear for the customer (faster commute, higher efficiency, etc.). However, in education I don't believe it is that clear. If you ask most people, they would be comfortable saying that a higher percentage of the population being educated is better for society because there are more ideas, there is a more civilized political discourse, and there are (generally speaking) more opportunities for wealth creation. But, most are also not incentivized to donate, time or money, to either Supply side of education (better teachers, facilities, etc.) or Demand for education (the willingess and ability of children to attend school). Therefore, there is maybe a role for the government to play in this arena, maybe it's not clear cut, and there are many solutions to explore, but there is a case to be made for that stance without the vitriolic rethoric from some libertarians here.
+gideondavid30 Yeah, if you are talking about binary outcomes, sure. But this is clearly such a complex issue that having a definitive answer without giving even a shred of credence to what the other side is saying is absolutely bananas. But think whatever you want, I don't give a fuck.
+scratchfg212 That is your opinion. You think that complexity obscures the reality. I disagree. I believe free markets are easy to understand when a person hasn't formed misconceptions about them. I think MICROECONOMICS should be taught to every child before they graduate High School. In fact, economics should be taught all the way through public school so kids are not ignorant about how the world works.
I think you are referring to the N-dimensional prisoner's dilemma and the logic of collective action. We grant the government coercive power to collect taxes to build the road to solve the "free-rider" problem. This arises in the case of public good which exhibit non-rivalry and non-exclusion. However, colleges and universities have admissions processes that winnow who can attend the school. Moreover, increasing enrollment diminishes the individual's educational value as they have larger class sizes. Thus, this notion of higher education as a public good is rather suspect and the case for government intervention is rather hollow. Moreover, there are several private colleges and universities and these schools have very generous endowments. Conversely, there are scores of students who attend college to improve their career prospects and would still seek credentials even in the absence of grants and subsidized loans. One big change is colleges and universities that have been living large by capturing those generous subsidies over the last four decades wouldn't be able to ratchet up tuition costs every year. And if the public good is really the driving force behind higher education subsidies ask some full professors making close to $200,000 to set aside their salaries to teach gratis for the good of society and wait for that to happen.
I disagree with you. The government's purpose is to protect liberty and property. That is how it was set up. It was never intended to be a welfare agency (especially at the federal level). Industries that provide food and medicine are driven by the profit motive. That is why there are new medical devices created all the time. Whether we like to admit it or not, there is a limit to the amount of health care available and it is reflected in prices. Just because technology has allowed us to perform brain surgeries doesn't mean we have an abundance of doctors who are able to perform it. And what incentivie is it for somebody to sacrifice 12 years of their life going to school and not be rewarded for their trouble monetarily? The incentive model for the public and private sector is different. There is a big difference between having to survive on your own merit as to relying on the taxpayers.
In fact, contra Friedman, Henry Ford was subsidized by society. He availed of lenient bankruptcy laws. The long term history of education tells us that it is a valuable public good. Friedman really was an ardent, well rewarded defender of corporate wealth.
I work in finance. so I've already lived the last part of your statement :) And true, despite how cringworthy some of the other guy's statements were, at least he was willing to sit here and debate Friedman
That black kid sure looks silly now that we have hundreds of African (and other social) studies graduates and nobody benefited one bit. Higher education does not equal wealth: NBA, Rappers. In that same train of thought Wealth does not equal a benefit to society or ones "people".
Alex Mondt Education doesn't guarantee wealth ya dingus, it also doesn't help that "higher education" in the US is part of the problem milking students dry with exorbitant fees. Fact also remains that you can go to community college for free and get a very normal and respected accredited degree, but that is always blatantly ignored when talking about higher education because youngsters have been led to believe that the Ivy league degree is the ONLY degree on the planet. You might also speak of the "geopolitical" spectrum when education results has mostly structured itself along the lines of race with a consistent low scoring and drop out rate for blacks. Education is not the magic wand that will turn everyone into Thomas Sowell, no people with the hardware (capacity for intelligence) of Thomas Sowell will profile themselves in society by dedication and will. Frankly education and governmental status is actually holding back business and job creation because corporations set the laws that weed out grass roots competition from people who want to start out on their own. In this I include the incessant high standards for even regular jobs instead of apprenticeships. As you can see there are many ways to generate wealth, but it doesn't begin or end by funnelling tax money into the private education sector.
@@alejorabirog1679 Yes because that is what an organisation is. A group of people collectively working together, in various roles, to achieve the organisations goals.
*_"the current state of affairs isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we should scrap it"_* Well yes, it does. Why wouldn't you scrap something that doesn't work? That's the most fundamental problem with government: no bad ideas ever get scrapped because of people like this guy who can't help but self-contradictingly reason themselves into a state of denial in the name of the poor who are perpetually getting fucked by those same bad ideas.
The point you're missing is where people such as yourself assume that life should be fair there are others who believe it never will be, and that when government tries to achieve this impossible goal, it actually causes more unfairness than it ever ameliorates. IMHO, If you don't like unfairness, take it up with God. He is the one who has some babies born with no legs or brain damage, and others with Olympic legs and genius brains. That's not fair.
@@tux1968 Where did you even get the idea that I assume Utopia is attainable? That's very much a baseless assumption on your part. It's socialists and communists that aspire to Utopia. The point that you're missing is that, just because Utopia is unattainable, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve the current state of affairs. Which is all that I was saying. Scrap what doesn't work, keep what does. And still, more unfairness is not a better state of affairs than less unfairness, is it? It's utopian ideals that bring about more unfairness instead of less. Equality (of outcome) is unfair, for example. *_"MHO, If you don't like unfairness, take it up with God. He is the one who has some babies born with no legs or brain damage, and others with Olympic legs and genius brains. That's not fair."_* I don't believe in supernatural bullshit, thank you. Nature isn't unfair. It just is. Those remarks of yours make me think you don't quite realize what fairness is.
@@skaruts Nice way to change the subject to "Utopia" which I never mentioned once and then spend a few paragraphs debunking it like it had anything to do with my comment. I'm an atheist myself and still manage to understand what people mean even when they use language that includes the word God. You should spend less time trying to make a dismissive reply, until you truly absorb what is being said in the first place. Truthfully I don't expect you to get it or to make a useful reply, I'll just leave this here for others to judge.
@@tux1968 You seem to be grasping at straws and overly defensive. I'm not sure what the problem is in admitting your mistake. You implied (quite clearly) that I assumed the world could be a perfect world without unfairness. I cleared up that baseless assumption. And my reply was anything but dismissive. I very much addressed your comment. *_"and still manage to understand what people mean"_* Well, not this time. You didn't understand what I was saying. Twice now. *_"I'll just leave this here for others to judge."_* Indeed.
In summary: the quality of the education that is taxpayer subsidized will always be crap, because it is not subjected to the competitive forces of the market. Therefore, because colleges don’t have to compete for their customers (the students), they can continue to hold a monopoly and to raise their prices as they damn well please, all the while the quality continues to go down. For the individual worker, a college degree is not necessary, but because everyone is brainwashed that it is, the government will continue to dump taxpayer dollars on bloated bureaucratic administration, mediocre instructors, unnecessary sports & recreational facilities, etc. etc. Take away the subsidies, and colleges are forced to increase the quality of their product to make it WORTH the price people will pay it (without the aid of student loans, state and federal grants, etc. that are also taxpayer funded and/or subsidized). Higher ed and the tenure system is beyond corrupt - make no mistake!! Peter Schiff also talks on this topic extensively.
Back when the right and left was still civilized. I miss that America.
+N Mil Liberals don't have the intellectual high ground so they pretend to have the moral high ground.
+weltarchiv4
Your right ,when separate groups can talk and explain their positions.that is how growth is made.
+N Mil I wish i could see a good or bad guy but to me i see 2 groups protecting their party and happy to be slaves to the lobbyist.
Was just about to post the same response. What a civilized debate, you'd never see this nowadays!
N Mil If you get more leftist memes that just shows who your friends are. I find the right to be more toxic, especially the talk show hosts. It's all anecdotal though and not scientific. What does Orlando have to do with anything?
I wish college students would still debate in this manner rather going out name calling.
I prefer that fools are outed as fools, and if fools name-call, then let them make that mistake. Vulgarity and daftness hidden behind pseudo-intellectual tripe are qualities that are hard to out.
"don't interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake." is something Napoleon Bonaparte said, and I think he was right about that.
They are the product of public union ran education
Fuck you. (Just kidding!)
+todd dyer because they're the ones that will be running he country. If the current establishment was this civil and well composed, no matter how wrong, when they were in school, what the hell will the safe space generation act like when it's their turn?
I wish everyone would debate in this manner, irrespective of your age, profession, or nationality.
"Society does not have goals. People have goals."
And this is where liberals and classical liberals really conflict. The recognition of the responsibility of the individual.
Excuse me but I think you misplace equality with equity. The surest way to have equality is to let people take responsibility for themselves. And yes, freedom is on the chopping block for statists. Just look at the "regulation" of *unalienable* human rights listed in the bill of rights. I.e. 2nd amendment and 1st amendment. SJWs love to go after those.
Only if you ignore the fact that some people oppress others. Some people do bad things. This is where we need government to step in and defend individuals. IF people were morally and ethically correct, then your individualist argument would almost make sense.
As it stands, you ignore oppression and the fact that we all depend on others.
I'm no anarchist, sir. Government surely has a role in protecting rights.
But you have no right to an income, or someone else's goods or services.
We do. That is how society works. Stop ignoring what you receive and only looking at what little you give.
That's how socialism works or more appropriately doesn't work.
"Society doesn't have goals, people have goals". I loved that line.
Alexander G Well that's a fine use of words, but if you look at it more closely you are comparing apples and pears. Society in itself is nonexistent outside of people's minds. It is a concept made by the people. It does not belong to the external reality. And since the people made the society don't the people's goals project to the "societiy's" goals?
Society also doesn't have a sense of justice but there are still police and courts. This is all a process, of course, but in my view, perhaps the society, meaning government and its institutions, should be dismantled in the end.
+Your logic is flawed. You have to remember conservatives/libertarians only have rhetoric, but they don't have logic on their side. These two men predicted the Pell Grant Program being cut would cause high student debt that would be unaffordable. Present day: $1.1 trillion debt and that Millennial's are now weighed down by the student loans debt.
+Your logic is flawed. So, you're pretty much a mob rule kind of person, then? You value the collective over the individual. Not every one shares the same goals. Everyone individual has different goals they wish to achieve.
+Chris Parker So, you've figured out my life philosophy based on that single comment, then? I'm not a 'rule' kind of a person. I just think there are no immediate answers , and there needs to be a process and it has to be gradually refined and perfected. My previous comment was just a comment on that particular sentence, not the whole socialism vs capitalism thing. cheers
+Your logic is flawed. Friedman's point is that you can't lump "society" together as if everyone has the same goals or should have the same goals. People have their own goals and society through the market will determine which one is best as the ones that everyone supports with their actual money, rather than rhetoric, are the ones that have actual utility to society at large.
It's like saying society needs education and using that as justification to subsidise college courses that result in no benefit to the rest of society.
Milton was such a good debater. He always got the other side to agree with something he said, and once they agreed they started thinking of their methods and why they agreed. You can literally see people making the connections in their brain when they talk to him.
It's a great way to sharpen people's thinking. Now college students just yell, attack, and hold crying circles in the middle of the campus.
I guess in 1985 you were allowed to debate each other.
In 2019 Milton would be "called to resign"
Probably and that is immensely sad!
Your point is well taken but I disagree. I think it is not economic matters that lead to calls for deplatforming
NO. The pig would fire him.
He would’ve been called a white racist nationalist and then called to resign. Lol. People have gone off the deep end big time.
Brad Ferguson go swim in the middle of the pacific dude this comment is so worthless
This was great to watch. People having civilized discussions, exchanging ideas and learning from, or at least listening, to each other, nobody assumed the other side had evil intentions. Very refreshing.
I wish their names were listed, so we could see where they are today, and what they are doing. I'm curious.
I had the exact same thought. Seemed like two bright kids there at the end.
Some of the names were shown
*****
Yes. David Brooks was the first student. He's a columnist now.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)
+Adam Ex
And, due to this interview, a conservative columnist at that:
'Brooks describes himself as having originally been a liberal before, as he put it, "coming to my senses." He recounts that a turning point in his thinking came while he was still an undergraduate, when he was selected to present the socialist point of view during a televised debate with free-market economist Milton Friedman. As Brooks describes it, "[It] was essentially me making a point, and he making a two-sentence rebuttal which totally devastated my point. That didn’t immediately turn me into a conservative, but ....” '
Christopher Hayes Also from Wikipedia "In a March 2007, article published in The New York Times titled "No U-Turns",[60] Brooks explained that the Republican Party must distance itself from the minimal-government conservative principles that had arisen during the Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan eras. He claims that these core concepts had served their purposes and should no longer be embraced by Republicans in order to win elections."
Milton Friedman makes every person in this room nervous LOL
and confused
Milton Friedman believes in Keynesian economics - that should tell u what u need to know - and this we have the fed printing trillions
For the most part, yes. That's typical of college students facing a professor who, as they quickly realize, has already heard everything they'll say, and thought about it in far more depth. Though you also see the worst student in the room full of confidence.
@@davidtucci6085 If you're going to pick one factoid to be "everything you...know", at least check that it's true.
Because he’s bullying them around. The model T has jack shit to do with higher education. Analogies have no place in trying to prove a point that is completely unrelated.
The guy in the huge glasses being school by Prof. Friedman is David Brooks, currently a New York Times columnist. Wonder what he thinks today about his performance is this discussion?
Don't you guys wish school operated like this?
Yes and politics.
I’ve been in schools that worked like this.
Mine did :)
civilised debate that we just don't see anymore.
+MyLifeForAuir87 It is truly beautiful and brought a tear to my eye.
It is so rare in the media these days to see an older, white man being allowed to talk rationally without being shouted down or callously ridiculed. I don't agree that higher education shouldn't be subsidized by government but Friedman presents his arguments well. Why don't we see these sort of discussions anymore. Why were the likes of Friedman replaced by people like Bill Maher in such televised debates?
I think the dishonesty from the media and politicians has produced an unrealistic, negative, oppressive image of big business and governments which has caused a diminish in respect for public figures and voices of authority, especially those with opposing views.
Bill Maher is a comedian. Mr Friedman was a genius economist, Not an entertainer, though I have always found him entertaining.
To be fair, Friedman is the equivalent of Einstein in Economics.
Haha Maher is such a tool!
Haannibal777 jij
Milton Friedman is a genius. We need more economists like him advising our elected officials to stop making bad decisions.
Just read this comment 7 years later and laughed out loud. Did you miss the part where he made the argument that the invention of computers doesn’t benefit society?
Love how Friedman holds them to the fire very calmly.
This is the best way to teach.
It really sharpens their thinking not to say something stupid in front of him.
I felt bad for that kid lol. Even the smartest people are left speechless when they debate Friedman.
I don't know if I would categorize those two as "smartest"
The kids or the kid and Friedman?
KonaSilat Wow that's pretty cool. I also am a liberal turned conservative/libertarian lol
@KonaSilat
He's still a lefty
Friedman is obviously very intelligent and eloquent. He is also profiting from his senior position and kind of a prick.
"Society benefits when people are educated"
The problem with this justification is that is too nebulous to mean anything. Just about anything can be said to be of a benefit to society. This is how we as taxpayers have been duped into paying for sports stadiums, whether or not we actually attend.
Your sentiment is precisely why Americans are seen as flat out idiots by other countries.
Wow, college students with coherent arguments doesn't exist nowadays. Their arguments now consist of talking points taken from CNN and Hollywood.
Milton Friedman is a hero of mine. So rational and logical in defense of classical liberalism. I live half a world away and never met him, but like when Hitchens died, I was actually sad.. even momentarily depressed. These are great men and humanity needs more of them!
Friedman is mainly asking that these guys just be consisten! I think this issue is debatable, but none of the respondents offered anything more than self-contradictory rhetoric. Although, at least all parties showed a measure of respect and restraint, as an intellectual debate should.
Yeah I noticed that too.... I get the impression that if I were to write down the implications of each statement of the respondents then I'd have found somewhere a contradiction, perhaps not such an obvious one, but it would become clear after taking a moment to sort it out
It's very Socrates esque. Challegning all their statements and make them rethink
Socratic method is such a fantastic method of debating. Best way to change someone's mind imo
What I also noticed is that he uses an all or nothing argument style, which isn't really how things work. He says "well, it did/didn't work in this case, so therefore all cases should be treated the same." That's just not how things work in a complex system, and I bet he knew that, but to win his arguments he carefully skipped over that part.
@@alangroskreutz235 but Milton is not that good of a debater. he is an influential economist for sure. and a good lecturer, but not very good in debate settings.
@@alangroskreutz235 His argument is no more all or nothing than theirs. The main issue is "you support x, so why don't you support y under the same conditions; how are these conditions different?"
Lol and here we are today, students in large amounts of debt to go to subsidized colleges
many of whom can't, or won't, or won't be able to find jobs (at least utilizing the degree they acquired).
This really really really annoys people. But Friedman is right!
The the UK, labour made university available to "all". Lots of my friends went to university with dirt cheap tuition. Universities created courses for those without the academic intellect, film studies, history of film... I have friends who have done these economically useless degrees!
If universities can make money by increasing access, they will increase access to get more subsidy by lowering standards of education to allow more people in.
I had a vocational training route, have about 6 more years of work than all of my friends, and they are stuck working jobs that previously didn't require degrees, but now do- but pay no more than before. So they have student loan debts and no wages to pay them off!
Making degrees payable by the student makes sense, only allows people to choose economically viable degrees and increases its value over time
I massively disagree. I would never take a debt to go to university, but the state finances it for me. Why? Because I will pay it back several times anyways by income tax. Why should I take the risk and the state takes the profits? If I was american, I'd go to the army to make them pay my education and.. uhh.. wait .. how many americans do this exactly like that? sorry for the lingual mistakes, did not use my english for a longer period of time.
Laaaaaber7311 Actually what you are saying isn't correct. In the United States, education is the responsibility of the states (I am not saying the federal money in no way finds a way into the system, but for the most part it doesn't). State income tax levels tend to be significantly lower than the federal income tax for obvious reasons. This is assuming the state actually has an income tax as well. Secondly, you speak of risks. If you see it as a risk, then you are well aware that there is a chance you would make less profit from your education than the cost of the tuition. This invalidates your argument that you will pay it back in taxes. There are plenty of people who get college degrees that bring them very little, if any economic benefit. Why should someone else pay that for them? If you still disagree, what schools should get funding (we know there will be a limited amount of funds raised from taxation)? How should it be distributed? What degrees options should you have access to? Who should qualify? This is the danger of letting a group of people run your life for you. They cannot manage your life for you anywhere near the level you can.
+Airidas Petkevičius I disagree with you. I don't think that higher education should be a public good. Why should it be?
Reply
Tabeen Raoof Would you consider grade school education a public good?
Anon YMouse I consider grade school education as a responsibility of the government even though it may not be a clear public good.
It's crazy how someone can be this educated before the internet, like you really had to go out of your way to find the information.
I realize this comment is several years old, but we were just discussing this the other day. I agree, I think we were more educated prior to 2000. Look at the extensively broad level of knowledge or people like Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin etc. back when printing presses were a rarity and you couldn't drive over two Barnes and Noble or order a delivery on Amazon, but had to travel the earth to find certain books. Yet those folks had a level of education that seems to surpass the depths of today's "intelligentsia" by miles.
Milton Freidman reminds me of Yoda in Star Wars. The force is strong in him, and he represents the good side of the force. I want to become a Jedi Economics Master of Freedom like Milton Freidman.
Eduardo Tenorio, we sound like nerf herders trying to compare Milton Freidman to Yoda.
The sith are trial lawyers. They always come as two. A Master and the apprentice.
Man, I really want to make a Photoshop of that
That was awesome
Patrick McCarron had to screen shot this comment cuz it was way too funny and awesome 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
8:06 - "Society does not have goals, PEOPLE HAVE GOALS" - Milton Freidman.
Loved that part
@@cbjork29 soccer field have goals
People have goals for society though. E.g. I would prefer if the people I had to live with in my country had at least some form of education. Or to have a working Police and Healthcare system if I ever needed that.
It is a common notion of rational choice school of thought. Friedman just recited it, he didn't make it.
Societies are collections of people. It could be argued that these people share enough goals to allow the coherent idea of societal goals
to exist. For example, I have a goal to be in a position that, no matter what happens, I will be able to afford health care. I would also like, as a moral Human being, for the same treatment to be afforded to everybody in the society in which I live. Enough people in this country (UK) aspired to this goal and it is
currently benefiting our society as the NHS (National Health Service). Any attempt to change this system, to replace it with a profit driven corporation would result in those in power being ousted. Friedman is what I would call a "militant individualist" and I can understand how he could logically arrive at the conclusion
that society does not have goals.
Friedman’s intellect and store of facts is orders of magnitude beyond these college kids (who are also clearly smart). The fact he’s able to remain calm and non-frustrated is so refreshing. And the kids know they’re outmatched, but are still respectful and engaged. What happened to this type of productive intellectual discourse? Can we as a society regain this?
It's your life, you design and work on it! Don't depend on others......
Don't be ignorant of the fact that you depend(ed) on others. Secondly, don't ignore that others have heavier burdens that cannot be easily dismissed with platitudes.
Drew Brown
What has got to do with college education?
My comment is related to your comment (and it's implied ignorance with regard to the individual's dependency on society) (and indirectly addresses the video's topic about how much society should support individual education).
If people were not willfully ignorant about how much they depend on others, they would have no problem (cutting the military budget and) funding education.
That's something basic and I didn't need to mention, I am not that dummy :) College is an "option", not a need, you don't have to go to college. College is another brainwashing institution especially these days anyway. And you can always go to college later in life, that's one of the best options you can choose in the US. In the country where I am from is super hard to go back to college later in life for many reasons. Also like Milton said during the debate, would you agree that the government subsidizes every business?
+Drew Brown dependent on others can be a rewarding relationship. just ask Dr. Daniel Williams.
Due respect to the participants in this discussion. That being said, who is just like “sure I’ll debate Milton Friedman”
I mean... I would 😂 his arguments in this are effective for his time period, but they aged like milk. His reference to China not having any Henry Fords is no longer relevant as they're now seemingly a miracle economy poised to outpace the US, and we see the question of how government can subsidize education, without giving solely to high earning families answered in innovative market socialist economies throughout Europe. Everyone talks about the Nordic countries, but Germany is probably the example with the most innovation tied to it that makes college free for all, thus allowing all incomes levels a chance to pursue their interests. Milton can't be blamed though, who could possibly have anticipated all these developments?
@@econometrics469 chinas economic progress is no miracle. They simply adopted free market economic policies while maintaining their communism in their fiscal policy. From where I stand, they basically said "they look at what Hong Kong are doing! Let's copy them"
@@johnclaffey7478 they also subsidize higher education. A topic on which I'd be ecstatic to debate Milton Friedman. Capitalist principles work, when paired with policies that reduce inequality and fund a strong social safety net (China isn't the best example of that, but they're an example of what you can accomplish with active but rigidly restrictive markets)
Friedman's genius is also his weak point. Most people just want government to have good intentions as a policy regardless of the actual effects. It's extremely difficult to persuade people who have no education in economics to support these deeply thought out and nuanced stances which Friedman holds.
+TheAceHD Milton Friedman said, "My parents were living way below the poverty line, but I was able to work my way through college." 1. His parents were middle class2. He took advantage of the Federal Government Pell Grant Program3. The State of New Jersey gave him a full ride to Rutgers.Can you say liar? Yes, he was a major one.. These two men predicted the Pell Grant Program being cut would cause high student debt that would be unaffordable. Present day: $1.1 trillion debt and that Millennial's are now weighed down by the student loans debt.
Forcing free market to people cost gigantic amount of money.
Liell Onawe Your statement is funny. how can you FORCE people to be free. Freedom is about letting people decide based on their own preferences are removing coercion and force from the system
whatever ones view on this subject might be, i find this forum to be refreshing and productive.
Milton’s points re: Chrysler... fast forward to 2020 and who have the bailouts gone to!?!?
Here In Canada, no different with Govt's bailing out endless big companies from Air Canada to Bombardier.
@@someoneelse.2252 but management of bombardier needed raises
In 2020 socialism (statism) is way more prevalent.
@@someoneelse.2252 aww, and Bombardier makes our Subway cars here in NYC. That's the main reason I am reminded this company exists.
@@EugenethePhilostopher Corporate socialism which is the result of corruption & capture of the state by capital
This video is so awesome. Milton is hammering these kids with Soccratic Dialogue. The dude is a great teacher.
Back when people could have actual debates over important issues that effect our lives, now it’s just a bunch of shouting matches
It was the same back then and worse . It is just that these specific people were more civilized
George L. Really? If you don’t mind me asking how old are you?
I'm more impressed by the level of civility than the content of the discussion
This man is a genius. Look at the bailout of the auto industry recently. The govt spent billions bailing out auto companies "too big to fail". Good, right? Ford did not take a bailout and they seem to be doing just fine.
Wish you were still around Milt. We need you
Oh my gosh that was David Brooks!! I love how he's supposedly the supposedly "conservative voice" on PBS; here he's talking about how great corporate and personal welfare is. Some things never change.
Dr.Milton Friedman... we still need you
but probably wouldn't listen anyway... you
were always right on!!😊
Not only was Friedman a genius but his knowledge in many different fields and areas is vast. He is intellectually schooling these guys. They talk in general terms of fairness and benefit to society. Friedman talks in terms of detailed facts, history, and irrefutable logic and reason. I am thoroughly entertained.
Great to see civilised debate! I think the students, for the most part, were arguing for equality of opportunity! Should the state facilitate this or not? Further discussion in the nuances would be welcome!❤️
You really don't see debates like this today. They're usually dumbed down shouting matches.
The elite dont want the masses actually thinking about this stuff and being able to construct good arguments against that which fucks them over yet enriches said elites.
Hard to find many sources that consistently put out open discussion material beyond John Stossel and Dave Rubin. Other than those 2 you can occasionally stumble across a panel debate, even then there's often someone on the panel who tends to resort to inflammatory rhetoric.
I wish uni/tv/etc handling of current affairs were like this all the time.
That black dude says he and many people do think it's very important for black people to be financially supported to go to college. Then by all means donate to those black people! Nothing is stopping him for god sake, why does he have to make everybody else, including people who don't share his views to do what he wants?
+yamahaU3 He meant going to college for people in general. The Pell Grant Program which is what is being debated here covered 73% of the cost of college. Allowing students not to have what is a $1.1 trillion debt and burden the economy as it has been.
Yes, I understand that, but my argument is that while paying somebody's college tuition is a very noble cause, people shouldn't be coerced to do so. Ask yourself, suppose you are out fundraising for a bright but poor chap who can't afford college, it is indeed a very noble deed, but does that give you the right to loot people or force them to pay up?
yamahaU3 It doesn't give you the right because you don't have the proper authority. If society agreed to give you the authority, then by definition you would have the right. So your example doesn't hold water. You're approaching education as if it's a charity. The government is not supposed to be for charity, so of course you'd disagree, but that's the wrong approach. People who support free education look at it as a net benefit to the economy. As the economy grows, therefore, it benefits all of us, including you. It would be considered an investment with an expected return. The debate should be about if that is the most efficient way to generate that economic growth.
Exactly society gave him "the right" to make decisions on behalf of the people who elected him and we do the same thing here. They make the WRONG decisions many times!
One more thing, colleges who are subsidized by the govt. hike their tuitions and these days colleges are gauging the people who go to college to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars!!! Govt. intervention has led to this problem!
This is awesome. Challenging young people to think and to formulate their words. The best way to learn is with practice.
So they subsidized their Ford Auto, and "what kind of Ford did they get?"
Classic Cold War savage moment! lol
To have been a student of Milton Friedman would be the opportunity of a lifetime.
Milton had already foreseen today's problem back in the 80s'. There are lots of college grads are not really taking time to learn their major but think their degree is the guarantee their future and make themselves and their families in debts. After bailing the banks, another crsis is to bail these college grads debts.
My education was 100% paid for by the American tax payer !!!, as was every other GI who served in our military.
I think that should be the standard for government/tax payer support for higher education.
We put fourth effort, and received benefit for that effort, we paid it forward !!!
I could have never afforded to go to college with out the GI education bill, my parents were just middle class, and I was a less than stellar student, yet four years of service, and maturity improved my scholastic ability to became a straight A student. The tax payers were repaid massively, by my taxes paid, because of my greater income, over simply being another High School Graduate.
What ever is given to a person unearned, is always unappreciated, and un deserved !!! What is earned by personal effort is not only truly earned, but long appreciated.
Tim
I totally pro subside educations however Milton Friedman make a good point, it make me think and reanalyze my thoughts
M to the Freid-dog has a way of doing that.
Visda58 I belive is because he do not see the issue as a moral/emotional issue, he look it whit a cold head numbers and figure. However Im still thinking there is a middle point between milton and free education, im sure of that.
eugene doyle Although he may not have made it here, I think his moral argument would be best summed up in the phrase "free to choose". Incidentally the title of his famous video series.
Milton sounds here like a bigoted liberal who can't see that investing in education is more important than investing in defense and roads ...etc ..
The main difference between developed/advanced and backward countries is the development and use of the potential talent of their individuals .. through education ..
Now , i don't know his opinion in primary education .. but if he has to be consistent in his thinking he must also refuse that govetnment fund public schools ..
I believe that free education would 1st increase human capital as a driving factor of long-term economic growth and 2nd also close the gap of income inequality. Since the level of income depends on demand and supply, free education could result in a higher supply of college jobs. This would of course correlate with lower incomes for college jobs and therefore an increasing demand for non-college jobs. As a result, the gap of income inequality could get smaller.
The freedom to develop yourself and use your money to help yourself and others is the opportunity all people need.
I paid for my college, so does the government owe me $80k now
Yea, but then you'll have to pay them back with interest.
That or, since you could afford it, you don't deserve any help. Nowadays equality is nothing. Equity is the new trend
cristi neacsu how about you realize you get a free education which is a high school diploma. Now you’re an adult and if you want added education that’s on you to be responsible to take care of it yourself or join the military or go get a trade education or go to work.
I bought a Toyota instead of a BMW because that’s what I can afford. You just think you should get a BMW for free because that’s what you want.
I agree that student loans should be interest free, but free, no
@@brennanj7843 it was a joke, regarding you getting money back. I said it's nothing about fairness today. I did not also imply this is a good thing
cristi neacsu okay, you can never tell anymore. 🙂👍🏼
Brennanj7 wow that’s so nice of you. I had debt, so everyone after me should have to suffer the same fate instead of a change in thinking... Asshole
An education system should be able to fulfill the needs of it's country. America is outsourcing doctors, teachers, nurses, and many other fields.
Crazy how much of a collectivist the black guy is.
Milton Friedman made excellent points.
No he didn't. For example he asked: should the government have subsidized Henry Ford since what he did was for the public good? There's two main flaws to that argument. First: the inventions of Ford aren't all the public good there is. There are other kinds of public good and the laws that apply to those kinds may be different to those that apply to the type of public good that Ford provided.
The second point is that indirectly, the government did support Ford. He drew on inventions of others that were often publicly educated, most notably mr. Benz. He also made use of publicly educated personnel.
Milton Friedman, I admire you!
Milton Friedman was beyond his years.
Friedman was a well paid corporate hack. He paved the way for the corporate takeover of america where corporations and billionaires now control the government and every aspect of society.
John they don’t control the government. The government has indirectly helped them, creating monopolies and allowing certain individuals to set the price system. Friedman did not set the stage for this. It is a myth to believe that corporations have taken control of our society and the government has had little to no control over their actions. The government has managed essentially all of their actions.
@@Logan753-g1v you say government like its a separate entity; fact is its a revolving door
Stop using the word "Fair"! I'm so sick of hearing, "That's not fair!". That's third grade nonsense. The sooner you come to realize that life isn't fair the better off you'll be.
+John Orlowski Yes but you can propose the vision of society and morality that suits you and within those perimeters declare things to be either fair or unfair.
+MrDarudin Exactly if life truly isn't fair one would have to ask why stealing would be wrong after all it is inevitable that life will not be fair. We create are own idea of what is fair in society
+treklik Fairness and morailty have nothing to do with one another. We should focus on what is moral, not fair. It's not fair that some people are short and some are tall. But it is important if the way we collect taxes for example is by initiation of force, which IS imoral.
Things can be unfair, but are they imoral? If the answer is yes, then there lies a problem.
+thedon008 I suppose the only problem then is that fact that everyone has there own definition of what they consider moral.
treklik Yes, but if you can rally a majority of the electorate behind you in a constitutional democracy this will allow you to shape society as long as it stays within the limits of that constitution.
100 years ago a high school diploma was equivalent to today's bachelor degree. People who did 12 years of grade school were much more educated than today's high school grads. But in any case I see no reason why taxpayers should be forced to pay for ANY education. Parents and private charity are the proper way to finance education.
How dare Milton challenge the students to think! This might hurt their FEEEEEELLLINGSSSSS....
From a black man milton Friedman is the smartest man in the history of America
Thomas Sowell might be even better.
@@matt-hew69 Amen to that.
Young Lib minds being blown by the corporate welfare example at 11:30.
That is a textbook strawman argument. It was used because Friedman could not defend his point otherwise.
+Drew Brown There was no straw man involved. Friedman gave the young men statistics that disproved their assertion that government assistance provides the most equity, to which one young man responded "That's not fair. I don't know how I'd fix it, but I wouldn't scrap the whole system." Friedman then responded that the system was regressive. There was no point to refute. Having established his position and refuted the claims of the young men, Friedman shifted the topic to the general concept of welfare and asked why their views were so contradictory. Friedman never stated that just because the young men don't believe in corporate welfare that they shouldn't believe in welfare for students (though I'm sure he believes that the views are contradictory).
His bailout example is spot on
Really amazing to see people with totally contrasting opinions debate civilly without attaching labels to each other in order to disregard their opinions.
absolutely awesome. David Brooks is a total fool. I won't bother commenting on that black kid - he was just outmatched. Milton Friedman - total badass
I always thought it's right if the education is subsidized, but now I think I've changed my mind.
The level of the discussion is high it makes me wonder when was it that society crossed the point of no return in the ability to communicate efficiently and in a civilized manner.
When women became the majority of the voting bloc. We call such a view misogynistic, but I don't really care about the ists, isms, and istics here. It is simple the case that men have a basic respect and admiration for rationality and logic where women, on the whole, do not. The entire SJW leftist movement has at its core anti-rationalist post-modernist theory that literally advocates feeling and belief over rationality and objectivity.
Further, since men have always been the ones to go to war when agreements could not be hashed out, they have way more incentive toward civility and settling disagreements via persuasion. Women have a certain disregard for such things because they don't suffer the consequences of it as harshly, so they tend to feel free to be aggressive knowing society will protect them instead of punishing them for their aggression as society does men.
Friedman is the bauss. I love how he disects that guy's argument w logic
Another problem is people will do useless degrees like Art, Liberal Arts and social studies.
Introduce a Voucher system, for primary and secondary education and let people save.
I have to disagree with you, there is no such thing called useless degrees, Art, Social Studies they exist for a reason. In a society, there must be different kinds of people who specialize in different things, which contributes diversity, diversity is so valuable in our society because it expose us to all kinds of beauty. What our society would look like if we only have engineer, accountant, and economist left, who is gonna do the art work? who is gonna design the appearance of iPhone? I feel sad that nowadays Liberal Arts and Social Science are so underrated, and think we could solve every problem mathematically, wrong......
CELINE LI SU So many people take them though. Same with law aswell.
+ZachariasCatIV It seems like if people in their 20's with certain college degrees that have little or no practical value are complaining about their low wages; they are probably the type of people who have been complaining their whole lives. All college degrees are not equal; therefore their value in society is not equal. An economic market; whether in a republic such as ours, or a communist state, is guided by supply and demand. Take for instance doctors. Historically they have made good salaries and the profession has a high level of esteem from the people? Why? Because there is a huge demand for medicine and medical care in general. Also, it is difficult to become a doctor; therefore the numbers of doctors are limited because not everyone has the work ethic or desire to go through 8 years of college. Now consider the person who obtains a degree in Humanities for example. Are 330,000,000 Americans going to pay more to hear a lecture on ancient Babylonian fertility dolls; or are they going to pay more to a doctor for life saving medicine?
"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul".
government assistance is a crutch for people and business'/industries that can't survive in the free market. if you choose(key word here) to become educated and practice business in a field that doesnt pay well, you have no right to demand (which is what government enforcement is) that others (taxes come from productive people) pay you for situation which is a result of your choices.
+Atomic_Pepper Billy Madison is the shit. it seems like you're agreeing with me. I can't tell
I wish I could find content like this being made today
so old but so relevant. the eternal struggle
We NEED
mo' MONEY
fo' DEM
PRO
GRAMS
+Bigpussycat5 hol up
*smacks lips*
watchu tombout?
Carla Denes Well statistically speaking white women and women in general perfer white men(specifically white Chad) then Asians, then Hispanics. I think you've been watching to much BET.
"The assumption is that there are people who are giving and not receiving in return."
That's not an assumption, just a fact. Everyone is paying for these people who will eventually *potentially* become lawyers, doctors, etc. to become that. But only the upper classes will be able to afford them once they do. Or, those at the bottom may (eventually) get government assistance granting them access to some of these services but many in the middle class will not gain access either way.
And of course this isn't to speak of the courses we have today, many of which don't benefit anyone at all.
Classic. At 2:00 Friedman says, "What are you talking about?"
The main issue is whether something is voluntary or coerced. If someone believes more black people should go to college, they should donate to scholarships. They would even be more free to donate to an individual they believe in or who has the skin color they prefer. Those who don't believe that shouldn't be threatened with jail time and fines.
Everyone is free to give all their stuff to their neighbors and start a commune and try to live out socialism with their neighbors. No one should be forced to do so.
The black guy has a very poor grasp of the issues Milton is raising.
he's not the worst person i've seen in these videos tbf to him
He didnt scream and throw things screaming black lives matter.
A significant improvement on today's conversations when discussing state power
I had the feeling that not many people grasped what milton was really trying to say here. At any rate, i have a lot of respect for him and every other individual at that debate, very few interruptions, respectful, and no name calling!
Friedman is by far the easiest to understand amongst Austrian giants. You cannot however expect a country of people who barely speaks their primary language to understand logic as language is the building block for thought.
Still he is 100x more articulate and respectful than college educated blacks nowadays.
Milton Friedman is responsible for our two most recent recessions/depressions being so great.
Well he was a great man
He's the false priest that tried to justify capitalism through obscure myths about "economics" & human nature, just like the false priests that tried to justify slavery & feodalism through obscure myths about religion & human nature
i can't believe how civil this discussion is....
Universities and colleges do not make Henry Fords. Also to Milton’s point about why government should subsidize businesses in the same way education is subsidized I would say that the funding of education directly contributes to business, which is also funded plenty. Post secondary education is designed to create good, reliable employees that businesses can utilize confidently and invest in.
Universities may not produce Henry Fords. They did produce, however the men that Ford needed to build a company and the men on whose inventions Ford drew.
Edit: maybe I should learn to read the complete post before commenting. It looks like I just repeated your point.
"Society doesn't have a goal. People have goals". The smartest quote ever
I'm in insane student loan debt. This is all because the government gave out a student loan program. Once the universities saw that working class people were going to get a lot of money, they were like "hey! Let's jack up the price!" Then they spent all their money on making their universities look like palaces so they can draw in all these students. They also lowered the qualifications to draw in more people, and pay their graduate students peanuts to teach courses professors with tenure, meanwhile all the professors are making six figures. It's a mess. If I could go back in time I would have learned French and went to a small French college. Tuition there is cheap and the payoff is valuable.
aburg10s What is Supply and Demand?
Supply of Universities stayed the same, Demand skyrockets = higher prices.
We are less educated per capita in America compared to European countries, yet we destroy them in the marketplace. In fact, the facts state that less dependent we are as a society to have something "free" given to us, the harder we work to overcome that. Therefore, those who do not value education, work harder, creating a more vibrant economy. Not everyone is designed for higher education. More education does not equal marketplace superiority.
Fun watching Friedman scold David Brooks who like to pretend that he's the most wise and most intelligent guy in the room today.
He was a kid here though
Give it to that young black man he did not back down on making his point.
He stuck to his point, but that didn't make him any less wrong.
A government is put in place to have goals, if they dont they are not doing what they were meant to.as tax payers we are all entitled to get a statement of what the government is doing with our tax money but we dont.The government is run often by power hungry people.
You know that is David Brooks there wearing the glasses! Amazing
Should military and wars be subsidized by taxpayers? NO. Should higher Education be subsidized? YES.
As a society what is our priority, war or education? Today we live in a highly technological dependent society in which majority of people living have no idea how those technology works. We need more engineers, scientists, and doctors, not soldiers.
The more educated individuals are, the more they can become productive in society.
+Super Capacitor The case for subsidizing military is far stronger. Without protection from violators, there are no rights of any kind. Without rights, there is no freedom. Without freedom, there is no education, only indoctrination.
fzqlcs
Yes I agree a nation needs protection and defense. BUT today we spend more money in military than the next seven countries combined. The military industrial complex thrives on FEAR of the citizens, they are the ones who are indoctrinating us.The mainstream media always talk about terrorists and promote fear mongering tactics, so that its citizens will blindly agree to spending on war and weapons, in the name of "security."
Why not reduce our military by half and invest that money in educating our citizens so that they can invent new technologies that can improve our lives, instead of learning how to blindly obey, hold guns and participating in murder and destruction. Makes no sense.
+Super Capacitor I agree with much of what you say. Too much spent on military and spent unwisely. We need a strong, but focused military that is only used to degrade a threat and then come home, not attempt to reshape the Middle East in a western image. Education is important, so much so that it should not be left to government. Parental choice. For both reasons, Rand Paul 2016.
fzqlcs
*"The case for subsidizing military*
*is much stronger."*
That's like saying your muscles are more important than your brain. Yes. having a good strong military makes you tough. But having no education makes you stupid. The brain can exist without muscles but the muscles cannot exist without the brain.
We need educated citizens that can think for themselves, and be well educated in the field of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), because we are a technological dependent society.
fzqlcs
Rand Paul...eh. Ron Paul was much better in IMO whom I supported back in 2012. I think Bernie Sanders right now is the best candidate. He's not a bought-out politician and speaks the truth just like Ron Paul.
I think Friedman goes too far when it comes to limited government. However, he is one of the great minds of the 20th century and as our nation progresses his views on monetary policy have come true. Love listening to him speak as well and he is a formidable debater.
As a British person reading these comments, I am always incredibly amazed by how much further to the right the USA is on social and economic issues than the rest of the developed world
That explains a lot of the continual US economic growth over a long period compared to the majority of the world. Sadly in the early 2000s (due to federal government and FED policy) this turned a corner and it went from a production society to a debt driven society, propped up on stilts which are quickly becoming very unstable. Housing, student and general consumer debt make the 08 crash look like it had just won the lotto in comparison.
@@bhough410 US economic growth is due to many factors, but it being a far right political entity is not one of them; the far right aspect simply means the US's wealth is concentrated among very few individuals, the average citizen is far worse off than their European contemparies.
Factors for the US continued economy; country founded on genocide of native population with no realistic nearby enemies, giving the US uncontested access to vast natural resources. Slavery. Post-WW2 destruction of every other major empire and advanced economy, allowing the US to snowball to its current position as dominant empire and economic power.
@@bhough410, and, in fact, that 'corner' into a debt-driven society was turned in the 1970s, though it did not become noticeable until the late 1980s, when the U.S. found itself swimming in a pool of red ink as a result of the Reagan Administration's (successfully run?) arms race with the Soviet Union (which bankrupted and ended it). That 'red-ink pool' became a lake with the 2007-2010 financial/economic crisis, and now with the global pandemic, it's a sea.
We makuh dah money but we gotta duh social issues
Indeed
School and university are free here in Germany.If you are dead-broke,your child can still get a higher education.The system is quite well-functioning in this country.
Has our upward mobility increased as a result?
@@peterruf1462 People who have irresponsible parents do not have to suffer the undeserved consequences.
Good point .. Friedman was just stubborn .. i suppose tv programs quality are also higher in Germany because of the same reason ..
@@tazokakabadze3828 your non answer is answer enough. A secondary problem is the devaluation of higher education. Which ultimately has the same effect that every subsidy seems to have.
@@walidaichi2927 Highest ranking Nazi officials were pretty god-damn smart on IQ scale and highly educated in academic matters,but they were still immoral,depraved human beings.So what is your point?Just because you are smarter and more educated doesn't mean you enjoy more moral things.
7:02 was waiting for him to go there and wouldn't you know it he did
some dude Yeah you know people sharing their perspective..I’m sure you can speak on being black in the 80s
i do support mr friedman ideas but i do appreciate the two guy that were questioning his ideas, this was a very productive conversation and is no nice to see people with different opinions talking in a very civilized way.
OK. I am somewhere in the middle with this and I can't understand how some people commenting can be absolutely certain of their position. For me that's the number 1 sign of stupidity (absolute certainty on complex issues).
It is certainly a very complex issue, but there are things in which theories such as game theory give us a nice explanation on why government may be helpful in some cases. For instance, if you tell any individual to contribute to build roads with the proper logistic nuances etc. most people will have no incentive to do so because their contribution helps everyone and nobody wants to be the "sucker" from which others leech from, that is called a Nash equilibrium. The Nash equilibrium in this case is suboptimal because everybody is worse off because nobody has incentives to move on their own. Education is different from building businesses because the incentive for the owner is clear (profit) and clear for the customer (faster commute, higher efficiency, etc.). However, in education I don't believe it is that clear. If you ask most people, they would be comfortable saying that a higher percentage of the population being educated is better for society because there are more ideas, there is a more civilized political discourse, and there are (generally speaking) more opportunities for wealth creation. But, most are also not incentivized to donate, time or money, to either Supply side of education (better teachers, facilities, etc.) or Demand for education (the willingess and ability of children to attend school). Therefore, there is maybe a role for the government to play in this arena, maybe it's not clear cut, and there are many solutions to explore, but there is a case to be made for that stance without the vitriolic rethoric from some libertarians here.
+scratchfg212 Having strong convictions in your beliefs isn't a bad thing if they are back by facts.
+gideondavid30 Yeah, if you are talking about binary outcomes, sure. But this is clearly such a complex issue that having a definitive answer without giving even a shred of credence to what the other side is saying is absolutely bananas. But think whatever you want, I don't give a fuck.
+scratchfg212 That is your opinion. You think that complexity obscures the reality. I disagree. I believe free markets are easy to understand when a person hasn't formed misconceptions about them. I think MICROECONOMICS should be taught to every child before they graduate High School. In fact, economics should be taught all the way through public school so kids are not ignorant about how the world works.
I think you are referring to the N-dimensional prisoner's dilemma and the logic of collective action. We grant the government coercive power to collect taxes to build the road to solve the "free-rider" problem. This arises in the case of public good which exhibit non-rivalry and non-exclusion. However, colleges and universities have admissions processes that winnow who can attend the school. Moreover, increasing enrollment diminishes the individual's educational value as they have larger class sizes. Thus, this notion of higher education as a public good is rather suspect and the case for government intervention is rather hollow. Moreover, there are several private colleges and universities and these schools have very generous endowments. Conversely, there are scores of students who attend college to improve their career prospects and would still seek credentials even in the absence of grants and subsidized loans. One big change is colleges and universities that have been living large by capturing those generous subsidies over the last four decades wouldn't be able to ratchet up tuition costs every year. And if the public good is really the driving force behind higher education subsidies ask some full professors making close to $200,000 to set aside their salaries to teach gratis for the good of society and wait for that to happen.
I disagree with you. The government's purpose is to protect liberty and property. That is how it was set up. It was never intended to be a welfare agency (especially at the federal level). Industries that provide food and medicine are driven by the profit motive. That is why there are new medical devices created all the time. Whether we like to admit it or not, there is a limit to the amount of health care available and it is reflected in prices. Just because technology has allowed us to perform brain surgeries doesn't mean we have an abundance of doctors who are able to perform it. And what incentivie is it for somebody to sacrifice 12 years of their life going to school and not be rewarded for their trouble monetarily? The incentive model for the public and private sector is different. There is a big difference between having to survive on your own merit as to relying on the taxpayers.
In fact, contra Friedman, Henry Ford was subsidized by society. He availed of lenient bankruptcy laws.
The long term history of education tells us that it is a valuable public good.
Friedman really was an ardent, well rewarded defender of corporate wealth.
Friedman destroyed these guys, badly.
This was so civilized and interesting to watch. These don't happen anymore.
"What are you talking about?" lol
I work in finance. so I've already lived the last part of your statement :)
And true, despite how cringworthy some of the other guy's statements were, at least he was willing to sit here and debate Friedman
That black kid sure looks silly now that we have hundreds of African (and other social) studies graduates and nobody benefited one bit.
Higher education does not equal wealth: NBA, Rappers. In that same train of thought Wealth does not equal a benefit to society or ones "people".
NBA? Rappers? That makes up like
Alex Mondt
Education doesn't guarantee wealth ya dingus, it also doesn't help that "higher education" in the US is part of the problem milking students dry with exorbitant fees.
Fact also remains that you can go to community college for free and get a very normal and respected accredited degree, but that is always blatantly ignored when talking about higher education because youngsters have been led to believe that the Ivy league degree is the ONLY degree on the planet.
You might also speak of the "geopolitical" spectrum when education results has mostly structured itself along the lines of race with a consistent low scoring and drop out rate for blacks.
Education is not the magic wand that will turn everyone into Thomas Sowell, no people with the hardware (capacity for intelligence) of Thomas Sowell will profile themselves in society by dedication and will.
Frankly education and governmental status is actually holding back business and job creation because corporations set the laws that weed out grass roots competition from people who want to start out on their own. In this I include the incessant high standards for even regular jobs instead of apprenticeships.
As you can see there are many ways to generate wealth, but it doesn't begin or end by funnelling tax money into the private education sector.
I'm talking about class. Not race. Also, community college IS higher education. I appreciate you making my point.
Got'em👏👏
"Society does not have goals. People have goals."
But society is made out of people, therefore, society have goals...
Society is not a collective. To say everyone in a society thinks a like is a kin to saying all blacks think alike you fucking racist piece of shit.
@@SmashBrosBrawl lolwut?
@@alejorabirog1679 do all black people share the same goals?
@@SmashBrosBrawl do the members of an organization share the same goals?
@@alejorabirog1679 Yes because that is what an organisation is. A group of people collectively working together, in various roles, to achieve the organisations goals.
*_"the current state of affairs isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we should scrap it"_*
Well yes, it does. Why wouldn't you scrap something that doesn't work? That's the most fundamental problem with government: no bad ideas ever get scrapped because of people like this guy who can't help but self-contradictingly reason themselves into a state of denial in the name of the poor who are perpetually getting fucked by those same bad ideas.
The point you're missing is where people such as yourself assume that life should be fair there are others who believe it never will be, and that when government tries to achieve this impossible goal, it actually causes more unfairness than it ever ameliorates.
IMHO, If you don't like unfairness, take it up with God. He is the one who has some babies born with no legs or brain damage, and others with Olympic legs and genius brains. That's not fair.
@@tux1968 Where did you even get the idea that I assume Utopia is attainable? That's very much a baseless assumption on your part.
It's socialists and communists that aspire to Utopia. The point that you're missing is that, just because Utopia is unattainable, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve the current state of affairs. Which is all that I was saying. Scrap what doesn't work, keep what does.
And still, more unfairness is not a better state of affairs than less unfairness, is it? It's utopian ideals that bring about more unfairness instead of less. Equality (of outcome) is unfair, for example.
*_"MHO, If you don't like unfairness, take it up with God. He is the one who has some babies born with no legs or brain damage, and others with Olympic legs and genius brains. That's not fair."_*
I don't believe in supernatural bullshit, thank you. Nature isn't unfair. It just is.
Those remarks of yours make me think you don't quite realize what fairness is.
@@skaruts Nice way to change the subject to "Utopia" which I never mentioned once and then spend a few paragraphs debunking it like it had anything to do with my comment.
I'm an atheist myself and still manage to understand what people mean even when they use language that includes the word God.
You should spend less time trying to make a dismissive reply, until you truly absorb what is being said in the first place.
Truthfully I don't expect you to get it or to make a useful reply, I'll just leave this here for others to judge.
@@tux1968 You seem to be grasping at straws and overly defensive. I'm not sure what the problem is in admitting your mistake. You implied (quite clearly) that I assumed the world could be a perfect world without unfairness. I cleared up that baseless assumption.
And my reply was anything but dismissive. I very much addressed your comment.
*_"and still manage to understand what people mean"_*
Well, not this time. You didn't understand what I was saying. Twice now.
*_"I'll just leave this here for others to judge."_*
Indeed.
In summary: the quality of the education that is taxpayer subsidized will always be crap, because it is not subjected to the competitive forces of the market. Therefore, because colleges don’t have to compete for their customers (the students), they can continue to hold a monopoly and to raise their prices as they damn well please, all the while the quality continues to go down. For the individual worker, a college degree is not necessary, but because everyone is brainwashed that it is, the government will continue to dump taxpayer dollars on bloated bureaucratic administration, mediocre instructors, unnecessary sports & recreational facilities, etc. etc. Take away the subsidies, and colleges are forced to increase the quality of their product to make it WORTH the price people will pay it (without the aid of student loans, state and federal grants, etc. that are also taxpayer funded and/or subsidized). Higher ed and the tenure system is beyond corrupt - make no mistake!!
Peter Schiff also talks on this topic extensively.