The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- 'Why Capitalism is Best (1979)'

Source:Commonsense Cap- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

Source:The FreeState

"Milton Friedman On Why Capitalism is Best" 

From Commonsense Cap 

Phil Donahue essentially trying to make the case that private enterprise and capitalism is somehow greedy and all the angels and unselfish people work for government, with the role of regulating how the rest of us live. 

With Professor Friedman making the sharp and quick response to that by boomeranging Mr. Donahue's point against him and rhetorically asking him: "Do you think Russia and China doesn't act on greed and aren't greedy." As well as asking him if he's aware of a successful society that doesn't act on greed. 

Webster's definition of greed: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed" We all want more than we need in life (except for Angels and Saints) so we have security and not have to worry about how we're going to pay our bills and take care of our families. 

There can be too much of anything in life, as well as too little. But if you eliminate greed, you'll have a lot more poverty in America, as well as anywhere else, because you'll have fewer people wanting to be successful in life and getting the skills and knowledge to be successful, because they won't have that self-motivation to be secure and have more than they need to live well. 

Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson- Interviewing Milton Friedman: President Bill Clinton (1999)

Source:Uncommon Knowledge- Peter Robinson interviewing Professor Milton Friedman, in 1999.

Source:The FreeState

“Milton Friedman vs Bill Clinton (1999) Debunking Climate Policy, The FDA & More!”  

From Basic Economics 

I disagree with Professor Friedman’s comments about the Reagan economy versus the Clinton economy. The reason for the economic boom of the mid and late 1990s wasn’t because Ronald Reagan. Reaganomics gave us the high inflation, high interest rates, the deficits, and recession of the early 1990s. The Reagan boom was from 1983-89 and then the economy slowed down dramatically starting in 1990 and then we’re in recession by 1991.

The economic boom of the 1990s happened because of the new tech boom, the free trade agreements that were passed and negotiated by President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton of the early 1990s, as well as the deficit reduction acts of that period from both President’s and two Congress’s in 1990 and 93. Not because President Reagan and Congress cut taxes and regulations in the early 80s. 

Invest Bliguru: Free to Choose- Milton Friedman: 'Cradle to Grave-Public Assistance (1980)'

Source:Invest Bliguru- one of the panel members in this discussion.

Source:The FreeState 

"Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people's welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions. " 

From Invest Bliguru

From Cradle to Grave, is referring to how people who were born onto public assistance, raised on public assistance, have kids before they are ready to raise them and live off of public assistance as adults as well, that we literally have had generations of families who’ve lived off of public assistance, because they have never gotten the skills that they need, to be able to leave public assistance. Meaning they would have the skills that they need to get a good job and not have to live off of public assistance, because they have the means to be able to take care of themselves and their kids.

A lot of this is a result of the safety net that was created in America, in the 1930s with the New Deal and the 1960s with the Great Society. Where you had all the social insurance programs that we're designed to help sustain people while they are in poverty, but not do anything to help these people to get themselves off of public assistance and out of poverty once and for all. This is what public assistance was in America, pre-1996. The TANF Law (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) better known as Welfare to Work, changed all that.

It’s not a question in my mind and I believe many other Americans minds, of whether we should help people, who for whatever reasons can’t fend for themselves. The question is how to we do that. Do we just give them a few hundred bucks each month and expect nothing from them other then using that money to pay their basic needs, but continue to allow them to make the same mistakes, that they’ve made and while they are on public assistance, like having kids when they aren’t ready to take care of them, having more kids, when they can’t take care of the ones they already have, using their public assistance checks to buy alcohol and other drugs, or do we instead help them help themselves, so they no longer have to live on public assistance.

Do we empower people to now have the skills to take care of themselves instead of what we’ve done in that past. The first question is what we were doing pre-1996. The 2nd question is what we’ve done ever since. This is what Classical Liberal Professor Milton Friedman was focusing on in his movie Free to Choose. And interviewed people who hate the current public assistance system and want to see it ended. People who were happy with the current system and people who were speaking in favor of the reforms that happened in 1996, that Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis ran on for President in 1988.

CATO Institute: George Will- ‘Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner’

Source:CATO Institute- Washington Post Conservative columnist George Will speaking at the Milton Friedman Prize Dinner.

“Pulitzer Prize winner George F. Will delivered the keynote address at the dinner for the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. Will was introduced by Cato Institute President and Founder Ed Crane. The dinner was held May 13, 2010.”

From the CATO Institute

George Will said in an interview with Charlie Rose in October, 2008 (a future blog post that is coming up) that, there’s a Libertarian Wing and a Social Conservative Wing in the GOP. And that the Libertarian Wing, is getting larger in the GOP thanks to Ron Paul, CATO Institute, and others ,. He’s mostly correct and I agree with most of that. I would just phrase that a little differently.

There’s a Conservative Wing and I mean Conservative across the board not statist in any sense and there’s a statist wing in the Republican Party. So-called Christian-Conservatives (Christian-fundamentalist-theocrats, in actuality)  who now make up the Christian-Right, Tea Party, and people who don’t identify themselves with either of those groups.

Thats the State of GOP today which is made up of people who believe in economic freedom, except for the right for workers to organize, religious freedom for Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Christians, and they want big government out of our wallets, so they can get in our bedrooms and living rooms to tell us how we can live our lives, who we can sleep with, who we can marry, what we can watch on TV, and what we can listen to, what bars and clubs we can go to, etc. To a certain extent even what we can do with our own money.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Christian-Fascist wing of the Republican Party is winning in the Republican Party. Which is bad for them and anyone who believes in liberal democracy and doesn’t want America to become a one-party state, which is most of us.

As we move along as a country, we are getting younger, more tolerant, more liberal, and libertarian. We are becoming a country that wants big government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Generation X and Y are perfect examples of that.

But as the changes are happening, we have Christian-Fascists who are still stuck in the John Wayne-Ozzie and Harriet’s-Beaver Cleaver’s 1950s America and haven’t figured out that color TV is common and that people like to have a good time and don’t want to be told how to live their lives. That not all Americans don’t fit in with the 1950s establishment, that we are all individuals and don’t fit into the Christian-Fascist box of what Americans are supposed to be. And that if you don’t fit in that box, which is only the size of a lunch box, that somehow you are Un-American, or Socialist.

George Will, is right about the Republican Party in the sense of the two wings that make up today’s GOP. What he would call a Libertarian Wing, that he fits in, that I would call Conservative, which is different. And a so-called Social Conservative Wing (even though they don’t believe in conserving anything) that I would call statist.

There are Christian-Fascist Republicans and are unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Statists are not only coming, but are winning in the Republican Party and are on course to put the Republican Party out of business.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman- 'Free to Choose- From Cradle to Grave'

Source:Invest Bligiru- Helen Bohen O'Bannon, on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979.

Source:The FreeState 

“Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions.

Traveling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed.

Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.” 

From Invest Bligiru

When Libertarian professor Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose movie in 1980, he spent one of his chapters on the public assistance system. How we treat people who can't take care of themselves. Keep in mind, Professor Friedman is a Libertarian and went into this film with pre-conceive ideas about our public assistance system. But he not only interviewed Libertarians, but Progressives as well as professionals who work in social welfare.

And they talked about the people who collect public assistance and what their lives are like on public assistance. And what's expected from them as they are collecting public assistance. The history of our public assistance system, from when it was created in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. And where we were as far the effects that the War on Poverty that President Johnson created in the 1960s. And the status of where we were as a country as of 1980 when this film was made.

They were talking about what happens when we take people who don't have the skills to be able to take care of themselves. Lack the education to get a good enough job that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Especially low-income low-skilled people who have kids, but lack the ability to make enough money to be able to take care of themselves. As well as the state of our education system, not producing enough people in the country that have the skills to be able to move on to college and more skills and learn a trade. So they will be self-sufficient and not end up on public assistance in the future.

Especially people with kids that they have to obviously look after, but which makes it more difficult to them to go to school. And get the skills that they need, so they can get themselves a good job and to be able to take care of themselves. And their families and not have to return back to public assistance in the future. Professor Friedman's, main point when it comes to public assistance, that I agree with, is that is you give people money, who can't take care of themselves and you expect nothing from the in the future other than spending what little money you give them to be able to take care of themselves, that they'll remain poor.

If you give people more money, to pay for their food and rent, then you are essentially rewarding them for not getting the skills that they need to be successful in life. But if you reward them to go out and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves and even demand that they do, then they'll do that in return.

Common Sense Capitalism: 'Free to Choose- What's Wrong With Our Schools?'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose series, talking about public education in America.

Source:The FreeState

“Free to Choose Part 6: What’s Wrong With Our Schools Featuring Milton Friedman”  

From Common Sense Capitalism 

This film or at least Professor Milton Friedman’s narration of the film is about the lack of school choice in public schools in America, as well as promoting private school choice and charter schools.

I agree with Professor Friedman that one of the main problems with public education in America has to do with the lack of school choice and competition, especially for low-income students and parents. And because public education is mostly funded by local and state property taxes, kids in low-income communities are forced to go to underfunded and failing schools.

And as a result these students don’t get the education that they need to be successful in life be ready for college or a vocational school, even if they make it out of high school. Which a lot of low-income kids in America never even make it out of high school and just repeat the cycle of poverty that their parents also repeated. 

Commonsense Capitalism: ‘Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?’

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, on Professor Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, in 1979-80. 

Source:The FreeState 

“Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman”  

From Common Sense Capitalism 

“Just” refers to an action justified under the circumstances. “Fair” refers to an action that treats people as they deserve to be treated. Many times, actions that are just are not fair. In hard cases, an action may be justified because there aren’t superior options, even if it’s results are unfair to at least some people.

If a madman holding a single hostage is going to blow up a school full of children, shooting him through the hostage may be just, but it isn’t fair to the hostage.

In addition, outcomes that aren’t the results of human action are neither just nor unjust. For example, a hurricane is neither just nor unjust. Yet a hurricane can be very unfair. One lazy person wins the lottery, another more deserving person does not. There’s nothing unjust about that, but it’s not fair.” 

From the English Stack Exchange

I believe the better word here instead of fair is just. There’s no such thing as a perfect world or utopia. You could create best system for life anywhere in the world and you’ll still have people who are better off than others. You still have people who have to deal with cancer, while others live completely healthy, with more money than they know what to do with.

We’ll never live in a perfect world as long as the world is dominated and controlled by humans, for the simple fact that humans have always been and will always be imperfect as a people. So it’s not a fair society that should be the goal here, but creating a just society that works for as many people as possible, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. And empowering as many people as possible to be able to have a real opportunity to live as freely as possible, short of hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing and holding everyone accountable for their own decisions that they make.

No one in world is better than anyone else based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. We’re all born equal based on what our race, ethnicity, or gender is in life. It’s what we do with the opportunities that we have in life that determines how much better off we are in life and how we use our intelligence, abilities, and talents, that determines how we do in life.

So some people are better off than others not because of their physical identity, but because of what they do with the opportunities that they were given in life and how they apply their talents and abilities. 

Professor Milton Friedman: Free To Choose (1980) ‘How To Stay Free’

Source:Invest Bliguru- a House Agriculture Committee hearing in 1980.

Source:The FreeState

“The Great Depression of the 1930s changed the public philosophy regarding the appropriate role of government in American life. Before the Depression, government was not assumed to have special responsibilities for individual or business welfare. The severity of the economic tragedy of the 1930s resulted in a dramatic change in public attitudes.

Many believed the Depression represented a “failure of capitalism.” Because of this alleged failure, government has ever since been expanding its power and the scope of its control. Government growth has resulted in waste, inefficiency, and a loss of personal freedom. Intended to serve the interests of the people, many governmental programs have been revealed to serve primarily the interests of the bureaucrats.

Many government programs serve at cross purposes. For example, different agencies attempt, on the one hand, to discourage use of tobacco as potentially dangerous to good health and, on the other hand, to encourage production of tobacco through subsidies to tobacco farmers. The list of government inconsistencies and inefficiencies goes on and on. Dr. Friedman, however, says that there is reason for optimism. Today, he notes, the public is better informed about these matters and is increasingly willing to take a stand against further unnecessary expansion of government services. He suggests the most fruitful approach is to remove discretionary budget power from the government. Friedman favors passage of a Constitutional amendment limiting the government’s budget and forcing government to work within that budget.

But this is only the first step. As Dr. Friedman points out, “What we need is widespread public recognition that the central government should be limited to its basic functions: defending the nation against foreign enemies, preserving order at home, and mediating our disputes. We must come to recognize that voluntary cooperation through the market and in other ways is a far better way to solve our problems than turning them over to the government.” 

From Invest Bliguru 

If you look at the lobbying industry in America and why it’s so large and why they’ve become so powerful and have dominated Washington politics, preventing both good and bad things from happening and becoming law, it’s because as the famous bank robber Billy The Kid once said to why he robs banks, he said,: “Because that’s where the money is.” 

Why do lobbyists lobby Washington, because that’s where the power is. We now have a Federal budget of 3.7T$ and now have a public service of eight-million workers including Congress and their staffs. So of course they are going to lobby the Federal Government so much to represent their interests, because that’s where the power is.

If you look at the Washington skyline, especially downtown Washington, you’ll see a big beautiful city with lots of big beautiful buildings that take up a lot of space. Most of those buildings paid for by Federal tax revenue and most of those buildings are Federal property to house the thousands of Federal agency’s we have and thousands of Federal workers who work there. Do we need Federal campaign and lobbying reform, of course we do. But campaign finance and lobbying reform in America is not a silver bullet to fix the corruption in our Federal Government.

But as long as the Federal Government is as big and powerful as it is, lobbying will always be an issue in the Federal Government. Members of Congress will always be looking for the easiest way to get reelected and the fastest way to move up in the House and Senate and be planning their post Congressional careers. Well, the few members who actually leave Congress will be doing that. The others will concentrate on the easiest way to get reelected, move up in Leadership, perhaps land a sweet cabinet position or look to run for President themselves.  

If you want less lobbying and corruption in Washington, get the government power out of Washington and send it back to the states, localities, and the people themselves. As well as full-disclosure on all Federal lobbying and political activities in America. 

Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: The Welfare State (1980)'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Milton Friedman documentary about the welfare state.

Source:The FreeState 

"Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman"

From Common Sense Capitalism

This video lays out why I’m against the welfare state, especially run by government, because of the built-in incentives that incentivizes people to go on Welfare Insurance, and not continue to work. Because they can collect more money collecting Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. 

No Welfare or Unemployment check should be worth more than money that person would make if they were working. Because it encourages people not to work and collect public assistance instead. Paid into by people who work for a living and making people on public assistance dependent on public assistance for their daily survival. 

Wide World of Wisdom: The Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman: 'Freedom vs. Fairness (1980)'

Source:Wide World of Wisdom- Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1980.

Source:The FreeState 

"Milton Friedman discusses freedom vs. fairness. From: Donahue - 1980" 

From Wide World of Wisdom

Milton Friedman has a point when he talks about freedom vs. fairness, when he says he’s not for fairness, but for freedom. Give people the freedom to live their own lives and resources to make that happen for them. 

I believe what Professor Friedman is talking about here, is justice, which is not the same thing. In a true just or free society, the people have the right and ability to take out of society what they put into it. That not everyone is entitled to a successful, rich life, just the people who are successful, who've done well for themselves and society. 

Unlike the socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) definition of economic fairness or justice, that everyone in society is entitled to live well, simply for being alive. Regardless of what they produce for themselves or society, if anything.  

Phil Donahue Show: Professor Milton Friedman- Free To Choose (1979)

Source:Phil Donahue Show- Professor Milton Friedman, on Phil Donahue in 1979.

Source:The FreeState

"Friedman, shows why he is unsurpassed in modern times in defending liberty. He cheerfully decapitates the ideas of a government-controlled economy, over a wide range of examples. His layman's explanation as to how government intervention and the Federal Reserve control of the money supply helped cause the Great Depression is simply outstanding." 

From Brittle 

I think it's great that a Classical Liberal like Milton Friedman can sit down to an interview with someone who I would describe as a Democratic Socialist like Phil Donahue. Someone who I again I have a lot of respect for, but who I rarely agree with. 

I love Milton Friedman, but I don’t agree with him on everything either. But I think it's great that these two brilliant men can sit down and have an intelligent conversation without trying to kill each other. Being respectful with each other without agreeing on anything. Something that Bill Buckley was able to do with Liberals and Socialists, without agreeing on anything with them as well either.

By the way, Milt Friedman didn’t consider himself a Libertarian but a Classical Liberal. As someone who’s a Classical Liberal in myself, but just considers myself to be a Liberal, I disagree with Mr Friedman. 

I also view him as a Classical Liberal, even through he believes government should be completely out of the economy and is for legalizing all narcotics. I disagree with both of those positions. I support legalizing with regulation and taxation of marijuana. Because it represents the same dangers, or less than alcohol and tobacco, both legal drugs. But I don’t support legalizing heroin, cocaine and meth. Which are narcotics that can kill people instantly. I don’t believe non-heroin, cocaine and meth users, should be forced to subsidize the health costs of these drug users.

I believe that government has a limited role in the economy, a very limited role. To prevent and stop people from hurting other people in the economy for example and providing a safety net for people who fall through the cracks. By giving them a hand up, not a hand out to move to self-sufficiency. 

Friedman, essentially believed government had has no role in the economy. He would be for eliminating Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare. No regulations for seat belts and safe cars and mileage standards and a lot more. He and I simply disagree here, which is one reason why he’s viewed as a Libertarian and I’m a Liberal. I believe government should protect people from hurting other people, but not themselves, different positions.

But here’s where Milt Friedman and I agree and if the Republican Party had more people like him today, they would truly be an anti-big government party: maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Very simple, but an important concept. Socialists, aren’t fans of maximize freedom generally. Because if you give people a lot of freedom, they might take advantage of it and be less dependent on government and make a lot more money than others.

Socialists, tend not to be fans of responsibility, thinking that taxpayers should be forced to bail people out when they make bad choices in life. 

Authoritarians, don’t like the concept of maximize freedom either, whatever the party they belong to. They believe that government should be able to regulate how people live their own lives. 

But if adults want to own a gun, smoke a joint, look at porn, pay for sex, sell themselves for sex, drink, smoke, whatever the case is, let them do that, because it's their own life. But don’t expect government to bail you out when you make bad choices and don’t force other people to do something they don’t want to and don’t hurt them. All actions have consequences good and bad.