Milton Friedman - Tyranny of the Status Quo - Part 1 - Beneficiaries w/ David Brooks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 พ.ค. 2012
- Please Like, Share, Subscribe & Click the Notification Bell
You can support this channel by using & sharing the referral links below:
Apply for an American Express Cash Magnet Card with this link.
$200 reward when you charge $1000 if you're approved!
refer.amex.us/MICHAmzd8l?XLINK...
Or
Amazon Prime Business AMEX Card Instant $125 Credit on approval!
refer.amex.us/MICHAms8Fc?XLINK...
Coinbase Referral Link: $10 of Free Bitcoin
www.coinbase.com/join/menich_sg
Binance.US Referral Link: Discounted trading fees
accounts.binance.us/en/regist...
Webull Referral Link: 2 Free Stocks
act.webull.com/nv/roABXEauBzG...
Celsius Network: $40 of Free Bitcoin
celsiusnetwork.app.link/16345...
Use link & promo code BTC40 Please Rate Up and Subscribe
![ป่ะป๊าเลอา ชื่อ ??? [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ssxX0VkJCTo/mqdefault.jpg)
This is like one of those Karate movies where everyone tries to take down the Sensei only to hobble out of the dojo.
So true. Body bags!
Many of these young people went on to be very successful.
Steve Calabresi is a professor at Northwestern
David Brooks is at the rag known as the NYT
Richard Vigilante is working as the Executive Director of the Benedict XVI Institute
Lee Lieberman (Otis) is the SVP of the Faculty Division of the Federalist Society
They all had stints writing at one point. Very interesting how influential Milton was
Calculator watch worn by Dr. Friedman....total boss move
Milton was wearing the LATEST CASIO WATCH with a calculator.....love it!
These kids are so lucky... I would kill to have a conversation with Friedman
Ninty Jazz I wouldn't. I basically know what he would say in response to anything else someone might say.
I agree. Friedman was the type of "logic bully" that we really need fewer of when we formulate public policy.
@@A.D.75 The real question: Is he right?
@@blahizake yea wtf is a logic bully lol. omg he is so logical i cant debate him im gonna cry!!! we need fewer of these guys!!!
No. He was a shameless shill for the rich.@@blahizake
thank you milton!
Brooks editorial in todays (12/6/19) "I Was Once a Socialist. They I Saw How It Worked" brought me to this video and, seeing that the comments are years old, had to make a mark of a current visit.
Christian Psychonaut777 the result was different by 50-100 million deaths at minimum, let alone the economic differences, let alone the horrors perpetrated in their name.
Christian Psychonaut777 the result is the same? I don’t remember any western government murdering tens of millions of their own people in the past 100 years. And about your second point, having a system of anarchy with communism is a major contradiction.
except he wasn't a socialist, lol. In this clip and others he's like a quarter of an inch to the left of Freidman.
@@anahata3478 we have had anarcho primitive government before feudalism, before despotism, straight republics and democracies. I had a Marxist tell me hey we have been practicing communism in its purest form (whether patriarchal, matriarchal, democratic, hierarchal) for 100,000 thousand years. As if capitalism being young was a bad thing.
I simply asked as I am asking you now; How come we have made advancements in human prosperity in 200 years by capitalism but could not in 100,000 or 10,000 years by communism?
The american system of individual rights and free market capitalism is the purest and most effective form. Oligarchies, and fettered capitalism makes way for crony capitalism, individual restriction and economic loss. Though currently we are trying to shrink government we are always on generation away to freedom, cant say the same for other systems.
@@anahata3478 😂😂😂 Interesting idea for an experiment. You could call it, “How fast can people starve to death?”
David Brooks went on to write a book called the second Mountain which I recommend
This was quite a brutal intellectual clubbing of seals.
I agree with this description. Friedman approached serious social questions coldly, abstractly, and like a pugilist. Some of his arguments are strong, others are fallacious and the young people at the table were not articulate enough to catch them. But thank goodness that there are truly intelligent, cultured people who know that formulating public policy is not a matter of competitive mindgames. (Like David Brooks today - who is intelligent and cultured in a way that Friedman could never even imagine.)
Holy crap, I love his calculator watch!
Hah. Tons of people had those in the ‘80s. That and Swatch watches. 😁
milton makes mincemeat out of these muppets, love it
I am surprised that Milton Friedman drove a Chrysler.
i fall on the left of the spectrum, in most cases, but i loved milton friedman! what a great mind.
Friedman sure seems erudite and - most important in a filmed setting like this - QUICK! And he's arguing with young people who are less experienced, somewhat intimidated, and therefore slower than he is. But is there a little of smoke and mirrors in it? Are his analogies really instructive? I get the sense of a calculating mind without any real connection to the world of human beings that he's living in.
Society does not have goals. People have goals.
BiL Zenovic Nice :)
Patrick McCarron That's bullshit. People, through their voting power, can determine society's values.
government is slow to respond, react, and change. And the nazis had a consensus, that doesn't mean it was right. Democracy is just mob rule. It's why US is a democratic Republic, it's to circumvent the problem of mob rule. The notion that the ballot makes right is completely wrong. You can't attack and dismantle and rebuild your goals into stronger goals through a ballot box, only through dialogue. A society isn't even a person. Consciousness doesn't emerge from the collective. Shared ideas unfold into a society's laws and in its standard of living. But that isn't the same as the society having goals. Societies don't think. People think. It's in no one's best interest to have a strong state that carries goals for its citizenry. The state won't react to flaws in the ideas implemented fast enough, if at all. Citizens need to have goals for those around them. It's a network, you see. Because you're not a link in a chain. You'd be expendable then. You're a node in a network and you're at the center of that network. In your lifetime you'll know a bare minimum of 1000 people and they'll know a minimum of 1000 people. You're a person away from a million people. 2 people away from a billion. At minimum. So the idea that any idea needs to have the great power of the state to benefit people is wrong. The best ideas spread from person to person very rapidly as they unfold in the lives of the people living by them. That's the thing is that the machine of government is not effective at thinking about ideas or about spreading the best elements of ideas and weeding out the chaff. It can only enforce mob consensus. The mob isn't always right. And less often is a democracy representative of the citizenry. Other governments, less so, historically. So a government isn't the same thing as a society, and a society isn't the same thing as the citizenry, and only the citizen can think about ideas and find faults and shift the world in this way. It's why our government places the individual's rights as the basis of law.
No, that's actually wrong. So what you're touching on is big 5 personality traits. So trait openness is related to political liberals while conscientiousness, particularly orderliness is related to political conservatism. These aren't bad things necessarily. It's not likely that there would be so many conservatives and it be the result of illness. Rather it's likely that these two, seemingly unrelated traits are entirely necessary because there are situations where there are people at the wall trying to get into the city and the conservatives will tell you keep the walls closed, don't bother they're going to kill you all. And the liberals will say, no throw open the walls and let them in they can offer new and enriching ideas. And the fact is that it isn't obvious when which is correct, it's actually something that you need to have dialogue about. Because liberals come up with the new ideas but they can't run them worth a damn. AND conservatives excel at implementing those ideas but not at revivifying the culture. So the problem comes when we shut out dialogue. If we don't constantly confront those who disagree with us, and constantly have honest conversation we can't get to the bottom of what's behind each argument. Because yes, the other side is stupid because there's nobody else who's as smart as you, but here's the thing, sometimes the other side has a point. And it's never obvious when that is. So unless we can keep the lines of communication open we'll just sit inside our own heads stewing over our own biases.
i always recall this when somebody speaks of the "better for the country"
Oh my, look at David Brooks!
You are ignoring the biggest problem of government guaranteed loans for college. The universities set the price as high as they want to. Yea, everyone can go to college now, and they can graduate 100,000 in debt with no real usable skills and no job prospects. My dadwent to school and paid his way through working 2 part time jobs. There is no that would be possible now given tuition rates.
Everything the government creates, it destroys. Colleges should be private.
It saddens me our clothes today will look just as ridiculous 40 years from now.
"he (David Brooks) was still an undergraduate, when he was selected to present the socialist point of view during a televised debate with Nobel laureate 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." ~ Wikipedia
Btw, the most accomplished of these people turned out to be Steven Calibrese, Lee Liberman & H.W. Crocker III; and also actually much more influential intellectually than Brooks..
Brooks's influence came as a pundit/talking head, speaking in defense of Conservatism, but tepidly so and not particularly persuasive. Which is why libs and RINO's love him...
He fits right into their view of what a “conservative” should be, which is nothing more than a reticent liberal - someone who is happy to drive down the same road but occasionally stops at the red lights instead of speeding through them.
A1 brooks is a moderate conservative who adjusts his viewpoints situational is why the left likes him!
wow, civility on all sides of the political spectrum, discussions about facts, who let the loud idiots take over the public space?
Between 14:00 and 16:00 Brooks and Calabresi really show how the status quo is tyrannical. Letting Chrysler fail would be the moral and economically sound thing to do, but to do so would destroy the status quo. Brooks is willing to fund a CEO to keep that status quo
The funny thing is that Silicon Valley's ability to produce high-tech products was almost entirely founded on technology that came from government funded research. About 60% of fundamental research has historically been government funded precisely because the return on investment is vague and therefore no real revenue model can be based on fundamental research (pay me a lot of money to research this thing and I'll have something for you in 1 to 15 years that might be useful to you...). Anyone who has worked in development understands that fundamental research cannot promise timely or qualitative results and therefore presents both time-to-market and application risks. Friedman does not account for the effects on private industry that come from publicly funded research and therefore his logic does not account for the whole picture.
Govt only impeded Silicon Valley, first by going after IBM and then Microsoft. If govt didn't keep the internet bureaucratized and commercialized it sooner we would have had the current internet boom in the 60s. If it wasn't for govt-enforced AT&T monopoly, the cellphone and telecomm boom would have taken places decades ago. The list goes on.
"About 60% of fundamental research has historically been government funded...pay me a lot of money to research this thing and I'll have something for you in 1 to 15 years that might be useful to you"
Nonsense. First off you ignored govt failures and waste like Solyndra. 2nd private sector invests in things all the time that don't bore fruit for decades if not a century. Did you know millions are spent and invested in cryotechnology and people have their brains/bodies frozen even when its research is in infancy? Private sector has plans for colonizing and mining the moon and Mars, which won't be feasible for decades. Entrepreneuers and investors are much better are funding productive research than govt bureaucrats and politicians.
There are exceptions to everything, my friend. Fact of the matter is that the data show that most of the fundamental research that has lead to breakthroughs in commercial technological development is funded through the government. Until that paradigm changes, your argument is just words.
EestiOke Words are your argument. I gave many examples. Provide citation for your claim and that it could not have been done better and cheaper by the private sector.
@EestiOke, You're assuming there's a fixed expectation of development and if govt helps obtain that "divine right" sooner they have done us all a favor. What's to say the private enterprise would not have developed "high-tech" products? If the govt helped develop X industry, what does this mean? What if the market helped develop Y or Z instead? The question we should ask is at what cost did the govt help develop X? Where did these subsidies come from? Tax-payer money that could've been used to develop some other product in the market. Govt assisting X industry at the expense of Y and Z industry would leave the economy at a net imbalance. Your argument lacks conviction.
What would private industry have developed as a Y or Z alternative to the transistor?
@14:45 David Brooks says "...that's basically what we go to government for; for security"
Oh, how can we forget that time when Jake Gyllenhaal got to debate with Mr. Friedman! 😜
Where's Friedman's speaking about the biggest welfare industry - the military industry. They were a huge expense back in the late 70s or ealry 80s , whenever this video is made. And the defense grew and grew and grew.
Military and infrastructure is why government exists. There would be no need for federal government if we didn't need protection as a sovereign country. Local municipalities should be deciding everything else. The only job of the federal government should be to protect the people from foreign adversaries, and ensure individuals rights are protected. Everything else just hurts people because everything they implement is a one size fits all policy. This may help certain localities, but may hurt others. Local government should be deciding on policy effecting their people, not the Federal government.
LOL.
Thanks for the laugh.
I am becoming more and more convinced, that extortion of any rate will lead to the inevitable death of that societal system. Essentially, taxation is a principled argument, namely, should someone be allowed to extort resources from the individual, threatening their property then person at the point of death to give the state resources? The principled answer to that question is absolutely not. And we have found that once you deny that principle, extortion will ramp up in a never ending cycle until that society goes to war with those that extort them.
Up until 9:56 the discussion was focused on 'people', therein the identity politics rears its head blaming the others for their lack of goals.
David Brooks was adorable!
how did friedman pay for his education ?? grants loans scholarships wealthy parents ?.. the GI bill gave college to a whole generation that went on to build the middle class .. before the war very few were able to attend unless you were born on 3rd base .. and putting these undergrads in a room with him was grossly lobsided .. little leaguers don't play in the majors .. this doesn't hold up well over time ....
who is here because of David new Second Mountain book?
Yeah, i am. Friedman is disappointingly full of sophistry though. Oh well.
13:28 that subtle laugh
The social Democrat went on to become a conservative commentator. He said this debate served as his turning point.
He's not really a conservative in the American sense. More like a Canadian or British Conservative or Tory. His views are politically moderate.
He was never anything like a "conservative," and that label is all you need. If the scale ran from -10 to +10, and the New York Times is somewhere around a -8 and Rush Limbaugh a +8, then David Brooks was and always is around -3.
@@Drchainsaw77 Ok, let’s call him one of many people who thought they were a social Democrat and then woke up.
@@blahizake If that sounds good to you, fine, but he was never anything like a "conservative."
Reagan is always good for a laugh.
David Brooks is the shit
David Brooks! 2:17
From Wikipedia on David Brooks:
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, during a televised debate with free-market economist Milton Friedman. As Brooks describes 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 ....”
Raymond Smith I also came here from that. I don't think Friedman devastated his points so much as he humiliated him with silver-tongued tactics. I'm not predisposed to Friedman at all, but either way it's hard to determine whether he knows what he's talking about or he's just an ideologue deflecting reality as he chooses.
Asim Hussain You are correct sir. I understood the same thing as you.
Raymond David brooks is a moderate! He may hold onto some conservative principals which he adjusts situational! Y I just watched him in the current day talking with j capehart and a moderator!
This is a classic case of what happens when you don't know your opponent's position.
I’m curious what are the names of these students?
Friedman is keenly and articulately using the philosophy of objectivism in this debate. The students have no clue as to whom or what Friedman is referencing!
these kids now regret coming to this show
Obama must have listened to this. He went to work right away at improving our health care delivery system with Obamacare.
around 9:30 - "Historically in the United States people of every income class have been able to get through colleges and universities"
Is Milton Friedman joking? Historically only the most elite and wealthy got through college. Is Friedman suggesting in the late 1800s and early 1900s college was commonplace?
Since 1940, the amount of people going to college has been around half and is currently the highest its ever been
What is fair?????
David Brooks got wrecked right from the start.
Can’t stand him then or now. I don’t want to hurt him, but if he slipped on a banana peel and fell in a mud puddle I would laugh my ass off.
Friedman is no sensei. He may have a black belt in economics, but he has a yellow belt in philosophy. Who in their right mind would treat as equivalent a position in higher education and a position in industry as moral goods that members of society should be entitled to? He is/was an economist (granted, a world famous one) and should not be expected to formulate broader policy on that basis alone. Brooks undersells his (and others") ability to debate with him. Unfortunately, they weren't, at their young age, able to identify the quicksand around Friedman.
appreciate the comment, ideas are meant to be challenged :)
This is so cringeworthy, but it was interesting to see him in this format.
Typically he just cuts to the explanation, but I got the feeling that he was trying to get them to come to the conclusion themselves. It's clear that he was a fun professor to have.
Ohh where is a tarsus when you need one.
On another note, it felt to me that they didn't have views on anything but rather biases that they could not back with principle. I'm assuming that these were high schoolers.
This is not even fair. Milton Friedman vs. a bunch of college kids....
joemommapwnsu19 Especially the fact that they aren't economics students, so they aren't familiar with some basic principles. Well-read students of economics would be able to question him on some specific points in language he wouldn't be able to easily bulldoze over.
David Brooks 4:23
Steve Calabresi was pretty sharp...
Brooks looks like he is about to cry.
David Brooks never grew out of stupid.
He just admitted on PBS that he is also one of Harlan Crow's henchmen, and has obviously carried water for those wonderful people like Crow for years. It is funny watching Brooks cringe now when speaking about Trumpers, without realizing his influence over the years helped bring the phenomena about.
Interesting that all the students in the film spoke of 'freedom' as being 'absence of coercion' or 'freedom to think and not be dictated to by others' etc. Yet all bar one supported exactly the opposite policies around subsidies. Media sound bite TV are designed to keep people thinking only one or two steps into a problem when as you see in the film, it takes a full and overall understanding of the evidence to complete the picture, somewhat like a chess player thinking 5 steps ahead & backward.
It is not okay to give Chrysler bailout money. Government intervention in the market causes more than you think. For example, government bailout money given to GM allowed them to continue operating their OPEL unit, which as we all know has caused GM to lose $16 billion in profits. If GM were to have go bankrupt, they would've had to run like a business, cut their losses in unprofitable markets and move on.
That's not Tom Sowell
Got to love 13:20 where Friedman just lays it out..."It wouldn't continued to operate"
Obama bailed out GM and the shareholders still got screwed, but that actually doesn't disprove Friedman's point at all.
I can't believe we are repeating such mistakes in such a disgustingly similar fashion.
David Brooks has never been as bright or quick as he seems to think he is, bless. But the question about public vs. private institutions of higher ed is quite funny when you remember that Oxford, Cambridge, the University of Paris, and most of the leading universities historically are today state run. The peculiarities and perversities of the American context is lost in so much rhetorical obfuscation (or maybe it's genuine political and historical ignorance).
It's quaint today to hear about the accessibility of higher learning given the costs imposed by the corporatization of colleges. I think you have to be one of the lucky few to break through or have been born with a break to find Friedman's opposition to equality of access anything less than sociopathic (and classist, racist, and all the rest in practice).
Where would Henry Ford's ideas have benefitted long term, without roads and interstate highways being built?
Good thing the federal government was put in place for infrastructure and protection...
Lmao the infrastructure sucks because the roads are public ... yet you jump on a private toll road and it’s smooth as glass
Lee Liberman and Steve Calabresi!
The government did subsidize Ford motor. It helped to build roads.
If you think they were arguing for socialism you clearly don't know what socialism is or weren't paying attention.
I love how they respectfully disagree wit each other. Debates today feel like they should be hosted by Worldstarhiphop, even presidential debates. What the fuck happened to us?
"You can't put a price tag on knowledge". Yes you can. Teachers don't work for free. Schools do not operate for free. Education is a product not unlike any other. The teacher is offering their services for profit and students pay for this service to attain their ends. It is not unlike a car company who produces vehicles for profit and the consumer purchases a car as an investment into their wants/needs.
Implication: The best society is one in which knowledge that leads to monetary profit is privileged over knowledge that may or may not lead to monetary profit. Knowledge that is monetized will likely lead to ignorance of a great many valuable things that are not assigned much value in terms of monetary currency.
Bill if the rates of taxation were equitable as in the Netherlands higher education would be financed! Knowledge shouldn't be a free market commodity! The us must readjust its thinking here! Higher rates of taxation to provide for the needs of the people should be the goal! However the American character is selfish! It clings to the myth of rugged individualism at the expense of its people! China will soon overtake the us economy! Then what?
@@oldfogey4679 You've got a lot us buzz words but no economic grounding. Not to mention your morals are pretty distorted here.
Aside from that, I'm not entirely sure you even read my comment. There are real costs at hand. The building costs money. The staff want to be paid. People only make so much income. There are prices no matter how much you want to ignore them.
@@BobaFettBountyHunter If I understand your second half correctly, you're using the word "knowledge" too broadly and giving it too much unearned weight for the resolution its being assigned.
I would also push back on this strange idea that knowledge that can be monetized will lead to more ignorance. Can you explain what you mean before I go any further?
But without getting too far into the weeds and away from my original comment: what exactly in my original comment is it that you draw issue with?
@@billmelater6470 I'm not having a debate in the comments section of TH-cam. I also already answered your question. How do you fund something that has no identifiable economic value when using, as your evaluation metric, that thing's economic value. Your terms are confused. The salary of a teacher is not profit in the same way (if it counts as profit at all) as the net income made by a commercial enterprise. Not only can the use of economic value as a single metric lead to devaluing important values, but that use is making you confused yourself. If you think opportunity costs apply in a situation where a person applies their talents to education versus applying their talents to sell products that will offer them a return on investment, you're missing a great deal of what is normally offered in quality educational contexts. I don't think anyone is saying that you should not consider economic value at all. Obviously, schools have budgets.
Where is lee liberman?
@ 14:20 - OBAMA SAID WE SHOULD HAVE A BAILOUT FOR ALL INDUSTRIES LIKE THE AUTO BAILOUT. LOLOLOL
I don't think he was talking about Tom Sowell. >_>
Who else is on the panel?
Friedman was a very sharp economist who was right about most things, but after an additional 40 years of Reaganomics, Americans are highly dissatisfied with the results.
Friedman did not foresee how extraordinarily adept big business would become (with the help of new technologies) at eliminating jobs & rendering millions of workers useless. He didn’t foresee how severe wealth inequality would become, how social mobility would decrease & most importantly, how destructive this would be to the morale of America.
Friedman acolytes will argue this is precisely because we’ve strayed from his teachings & allowed government to become too oppressive, & in some ways that is true.
However, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Other nations that have more socialist governments than ours have healthier, happier citizens who live longer. The average Canadian is now wealthier than the average American, despite the Canadian government-run universal healthcare system. According to Friedman, shouldn’t a system like that work badly & cause them to be less prosperous?
I believe Friedman didn’t account for one key thing- which is that capitalism allows & encourages many predatory behaviors that while lucrative, hurt people & the society as a whole. Left unchecked, the cumulative diminution can be vast. And that is what you see in America today.
Why you blaming Friedman for this :D bailouts, unlimited stimulus, growing govertment spending, regulations, monopoly on education. Its all opposite what Friedman was preaching for years, are you not listening? :D
@Andrius Valceris
And I agree with him that those things have been mostly bad.
But how has free trade worked out for the American working class? Are we better off now that almost every mom & pop store in America has been supplanted by Walmart & Amazon? Are we glad that we sent almost all American manufacturing overseas?
Those are all things that Friedman supported.
@@shanesawyer5103 minimum wage laws, discrimination laws, OSHA, and tariffs have all supported corporations
Those countries had healthier happier people before socialism was implemented. They have different diets, happiness is a clearly subjective metric to measure the success of socialism. People that receive Medicare are happy with the care, when people receive things for “free” they are generally happier
Interesting, at 14:48, Justin Trudeau argues against corporate welfare. He was a lot smarter back then.
Wait a minute that’s Trudeau...🤔
That is FAR from Thomas Sowell. It even says the guy's name in the video - Gary Jenkins. Sowell would have had much less subtle ways of telling the guy he was an idiot lol.
Who the hell is Lee Liberman?
You are not arguing Freidman's point, though. I am assuming your dad went to college post WWII, when the GI bill made college education explode. Friedman said college was widespread before that government interference, which is completely false. College Education was not available to most people in the pre WWII, pre Depression USA.
And what was your dad's useable skill, that apparantly doesn't exist to modern college graduates that you say your dad picked up by going to college?
9:50 It’s so predictable that race is going to be introduced during the course of a discussion/debate. Like clockwork. So tedious. 😂
10:24 - "People should be forced by the government to contribute money to something simply because it is important to me." Wow. I seriously had not considered that people could be so ignorant. That would explain a lot.
Does anyone think there is just a gross imbalance of power and experience and speaking skills in the interview? A highly skilled orator, economist and professor/lecturer arguing against a group of undergraduate students.. I wonder who is going to sound more knowledgeable and convincing.
It is a tactic still used by today's Mighty sophists like ben shapino
Ben doesn't actively go looking for them lol He has done plenty of debates with "prominent" thinkers on the left (they are easy to find if you look) and constantly looks for people on the left to debate him. Check his twitter. Few would like their ideas checked by Ben. Du ur reeesirch simp.
@@Kqmo "Ben doesn't actively go looking for them. He. . . constantly looks for people on the left to debate him." Well guess what, when you ask people to debate you, chances are those taking you up on that offer won't be acknowledged authorities in their field, they'll just be fanboys with nothing better to do. If I was as notable as Shapiro and asked people on the right to debate me, I'd be far more likely to get responses from random conservative students rather than figures like George F. Will or Thomas Sowell.
It'd be interesting to see Friedman debate the likes of Michael Harrington, Irving Howe or Bayard Rustin, three authoritative voices of American social-democracy at that time. Seeing Friedman debate someone who was like 20 years old is... not impressive.
@@IsmailofeRegime he has debated those sorts of people I guess you just are not familiar with him. It's not meant to be impressive those undergrads are getting the chance to debate their ideas with the most renowned economist of that time. It's not a tactic you people sound like idiots saying stuff like this.
@@pbskillz9130 I'm aware Friedman has debated people who aren't undergrads, I'm just saying that it's generally not going to be an impressive experience to watch one of the most famous economists of the 20th century debate a random student. It's clearly meant to be *something* given that the debate is being filmed.
The rest of my post is about Ben Shapiro, who has plenty of videos of him "destroying" much younger persons in debates.
Hey look at 15:30 its Justin Trudeau (the one vying for the next prime minister of Canada).
Lol do you guys really think the soviets didn’t have their Henry ford’s how about their space program alone 😅
+Ronny Cardona Free Market? The government never gave the market one iota of space to work in education for decades and decades. If anything, the education system as it stands today is damning to socialism, not free market/competition.
I wish M.F. could have lived long enough to see Obamacare, and the 17 Trillion dollar deficit. He was a prophet, seer, and revelator. He was right about the minimum wage, school vouchers, and almost everything.
So true. Would have loved to have been able to hear his response to the 2008 bailout as well!! No government interference right? where wuld the capitalists be without the taxpayers?? What a crock!
No. He hasn't been. He's been wrong about just about everything. The US is a second rate nation. And several other countries have a higher median income and standard of living, better medical, as well as longer life spans than the US. He's turned us back toward the late 1800's early 1900's. If it weren't for the social structures that do exist today, we'd be a fractured freak show that USSR became. Extremists are nuts. They make you stop thinking. And you sir have been infected. Start thinking. Because you've stopped.
jmitterii2 Guess what all those countries had? A free market!
The US is not a free market which is why it no longer has the richest citizens in the world.
I wish he would’ve lived long enough to see Donald Trump become the head of the Republican Party, & that party embrace tariffs, unprecedented borrowing & Keynesian economics.
I think it would blow his mind.
david brooks about this debate "was essentially me making a point, and he making a two-sentence rebuttal which totally devastated my point"
No, David Brooks had that title sewn up about a minute into his confused and pathetic initial utterance.
Haha, it definitely isn't. Sowell would have been in his fifties!
sorry 14:10
c's get degrees, hell, now a days c's can even get scholarships and grants. SMH!
Milton Friedman is like 4 ft tall
Actually he is 5'3"
Small people breath denser oxygen making him far more Intelligent than many people with above average height.... you wouldn’t want lebron James doing your taxes
_old man argues with a bunch of young kids_
black guy : system doesn't work but we can't scrap it,
There should never be government bailouts. A company either succeeds on its own or goes out of business.
💯
boss
Brooks has merely shifted from a socialist to a neocon. The difference between the two, regrettably, is not very large.
Milton was Lucky to live in the era that he did. His opinions were accepted solely because the time gave great financial growth to the USA, at the expense of foreign economies and peoples. nowadays he would not get away with his theories. would have loved to hear his reaction to the bank bailout by the government!
He'd blame the government. As always. Even though people of his ilk had taken over the financial/banking and governmental sectors since the 80's.
And people are so stupid today for whatever reason, they'd eat it up. Just as they did during his day. Milton is such a creep. I wish Sweden would discontinue giving the Economic prize in memory of Nobel. It wasn't part of Nobel awards, and Nobel himself stated he did not want to award economics, since economics is a subjective philosophical study, he didn't want to award the prize to someone for something and that person become a demagogue. And that is precisely what happened in the case of Milton. Economics is a study that can fall to demagoguery.
Guido Speekenbrink that not accurate at all. It’s funny when economically illiterate people make criticisms about economic theory.
It's fascinating to watch a young David Brooks argue with Friedman. Milton is razor-sharp and on point. Brooks is muddled, confused, and basically stupid.
Brooks didn't get smarter or wiser in the ensuing years, he just got better at hiding his fundamentally stupidity.
He would have been in his 20s at this time, I think doing film reviews and occasional op-Eds for the WS Journal. He was up against a Nobel Prize winning economist, not a fair fight. And Brooks is fine as an economist, it’s just laughable that he calls himself a conservative, which he clearly isn’t and as this video indicates, never has been.
@@graham6132 conservative now liberal then
@@direwolf6234 He's not conservative, LMAO, he writes for the NYT.
@@graham6132 originally hired by the times to be a conservative op-ed writer
@@direwolf6234 Right, he's a "conservative" for the NYT, which just means he's right of Bernie Sanders and AOC.
He hasn't supported a single Republican candidate or policy proposal for over 20 years. LOL. He's a Democrat.
Pwnd.
I think Henry Ford didn't succeed by alone himself, he succeded because of people around him who graduated from university too. 🤔🤔🤔
Perhaps not by the definition that is traditionally used, but that definition is a poor one. If his arguments were not for socialism itself, they were at the very least of a socialist nature, in that they argued that government ought to have the power, the authority, and even the right to take from some people and give to other people forcibly.
Pandemic unemployment extension is ready for the slaves to learn dependence on cradle to grave government security...so much security. Need for security is disgusting!
Ludwig we all need security it's a core instinct not disgusting!
whys the black guy wearing a tuxedo?lol
This video proves definitively that David Brooks has never been a conservative.
Milton Friedman simply forgets history. Henry Ford's invention would have been mute without the government building roads. All "free market" products were created with the support of the government in some way, shape or form.
Roads and infrastructure are a rare form of the federal government fostering markets and encouraging competition
I hope that when I'm a dinosaur in 30 years that I can sit down and talk over a panel of young adults with a series of imperfect analogies.
Lol. Social democrat. Lol.