video.google.com — One of the great thinkers of our times, Milton Friedman, explains all about why government creates more problems than it solves. It is fascinating, and since he recently passed away at the age of 94, an interesting look back to around the time he won the Nobel Prize.
Nov 19, 2006 View in Crawl 4
viliamNov 20, 2006
"This, in turn, raised the price of bread and the next year the shep farmer found that his ten percent increase in wages was slowly being eroded by a myserious source of inflation."If the inflation has consumed his profit, then the sheep farmer's decision was probably wrong in the long term. And the point is...? Should he be prevented (by the use of institutionalized violence) from making bad decisions?The freedom is about being able to choose what you want. There is no guarantee that what you freely choose will benefit you. You are also free to make wrong choices. The others can give you some good advice, and you can choose to ignore it (and sometimes you can be right if you ignore it).
chapiumNov 20, 2006
Communism fails because it removes incentives to be efficient and productive.
ooglerNov 20, 2006
The plain existence and fruition of a capitalist economy precludes the bulk of the argument. Maybe social spending by governments and the establishment of minimum wages etc. isn't the *best* solution but it's the grey area I'm willing to accept rather than the polar black and white options being presented by the Professor.It's just fantasy to think that 'money in the hands of the individual is better spent than in the hands of government'. I don't think the two concepts can logically belong in the same question. I can't make a significant impact on the social betterment of others with my income alone. The collective force of my fellow tax paying citizens insures we all benefit. I'm not talking about the 'do good' aspects either, just the 'do what is necessary' things. When my pay check goes in the bank the first thing I'm thinking about isn't who can I give this away too? It's not ever going to be that way either.Am I bad for thinking that way or just conditioned generally that more for me is better than more for you? And who is more likely to make the argument to support the betterment of others... libertarian individualists? I don't think so.
peppermintpigNov 20, 2006
"When my pay check goes in the bank the first thing I'm thinking about isn't who can I give this away too? It's not ever going to be that way either."We're all so cash strapped by taxation that I don't doubt people will come to that conclusion. The problem is that we don't have a choice in where our tax dollars go. The taxing itself seems like a big problem. Politicians argue that they should put their hands on the money first, and there's something wrong with that picture. If people are suffering, why not stop taxing them? Why not give money directly to the suffering? Socialists I've debated with argue that I'm too stupid to know how to find and help these poor people. Insulting my intelligence hasn't won me over yet.When the government spends money, it's not really their money, and they'll be wasteful with it. About 70% of the money assigned to welfare goes to the bureaucracy that runs that system, so I don't see how anybody can argue that individuals wouldn't be able to do a better job. A dollar in the hands of an individual who earned it goes farther because they value it and have an incentive to see it produce more wealth in the act of exchange."Am I bad for thinking that way or just conditioned generally that more for me is better than more for you? And who is more likely to make the argument to support the betterment of others... libertarian individualists? I don't think so."Well, I disagree, and hopefully I've just proven why.
gr4v3d1gg3rNov 20, 2006
You're right and me admitting so makes me not a lyer ,unlike this man wo IS a lyer.You don't have to imagine too hard to realize peoeple would suffer if we did what he is saying.When they stop taxing you are you going to be so grateful you then give that money away ,no your going to get a wii and a PS3 and laugh at the homeless.Who did the interview FOX news?
hideandseek977Nov 21, 2006
Everything he said is just plain truth!
harrygibusNov 21, 2006
P.S. Besides, I think all you economists are a bunch of witch doctors messing with "the force". If physicists could manipulate things like you all do, we would have all been sucked into a self created black hole by now.
peppermintpigNov 21, 2006
We can have a military that doesn't break the bank, and that should start with the freedom to not support the one we have now. As it is, we don't have a choice, and the accountability record for government military spending is attrocious: They get into stupid wars and the Navy dumps perfectly good equipment off of their ships to justify their annual budget. I certainly hope that's not your idea of what the military should be like.I think military is a necessity, but the one we have isn't necessarily the one we need. We need one big enough to defend the nation from actual threats (vs potential/false) to the people within it. And, *surprise*, this can be funded voluntarily, too.
ooglerNov 21, 2006
I kinda see what you're saying Peppermint but here's the thing that I need you to explain. Endulge me for a sec...I don't have a car so I'm not going to be spending any of my 'individual monies' on road construction or repairs. I don't have kids so there's no need for me to support public education. I don't fly, no need for airports. I don't get sick, well I don't get sick enough so hospitals and medical research are off my list. I'm off the electricity grid cuz I use solar... so no need for power distriubtion projects. I can't stand PBS so no money for Nova, Frontline and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. I don't believe, as an individual, my money should be used to prosecute wars, so absolutely no money for any military equipment, or infrastructure. etc. etc. etc.What I'm describing here is anarchy clearly. There needs to be some form of organized effort to spend money on behalf of all of us. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's a necessary evil.I live in a district that elected someone exactly on the platform you've described, that taxpayers can better spend their money than the government can. Maybe so where you live but not here. He devastated our public education budgets, our roads are full of pot holes... everywhere, public transit cannot keep pace with the number of people wanting to use the system, rolling blackouts are a legacy of non-investment in the energy sector, hospital wait times are way too long and on and on and on. It will be decades before we recover from this reckless approach. Just because John Q. Public has an extra $500 in his pocket that he would have spent on taxes doesn't translate to him doing his civic duty with it. He's more likely to just buy a new DVD player.
peppermintpigNov 22, 2006
"What I'm describing here is anarchy clearly. There needs to be some form of organized effort to spend money on behalf of all of us. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's a necessary evil."Wait a minute, you just created a scenario where you stated you're a person living off the grid... why would you want to have people steal from you if you're totally self sufficient? That makes no sense. Most people won't be able to be completely self sufficient, however, and people will benefit from your interactions."He devastated our public education budgets, our roads are full of pot holes... everywhere, public transit cannot keep pace with the number of people wanting to use the system, rolling blackouts are a legacy of non-investment in the energy sector, hospital wait times are way too long and on and on and on. It will be decades before we recover from this reckless approach."But that's only half of the solution. Cutting budgets doesn't necessarily mean the guy is doing the right thing. If the roads aren't privately owned, then of course if the government stops spending money on them they will break down.Public education is different because private schools are allowed to exist. I haven't heard anybody praising the quality of public school in recent memory, so I think in this case ceasing all funding to public education is the right thing to do.And as for rolling blackouts, your scenario is of someone going solar. You have the solutions in the palm of your hand, yet you're still deferential to some authority to fix your problems for you.
olexNov 23, 2006
He failed on the main point. He said there is no philosophy to carry us into a proper system of government. He is wrong. Objectivist philosophy is the one that can. (Google for Ayn Rand) Unlike 'libertarianism' Objectivism has clear and logical basic philosophical principles.Just to point one thing: in the video, he implies that it is bad to be selfish. That is wrong. It is good to be selfish and the only way to live as a human being.The reason government should be of the form that he describes is because, no one has the right to enslave another, simply because one needs something.
qxdcJul 24, 2008
Obama should watch this.