Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won't work.
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 04. 2010
- blog.voogru.com/2011/11/19/a-p...
The video is self-explanatory. This is a cut of an interview with the economist Milton Friedman, which answers a question about what rich people do with the profits they maliciously obtained from the poor citizens of our great nation. - Hry
I wish Milton was alive and had a daily podcast
+Brandon Kriegel He has so many mindless worshippers that you can look to online. The fact that his policies and assumptions are dead wrong and proven false dont matter.
daveruda Like what?? Pretty much everything he has predicted came true, government intervention in business, welfare, etc.
@@tommyrosati9326 No. Within the first minute he was wrong. Companies now are reinvesting money in hedge funds and other financial products the main street nor their mid to lower employees will benefit. The more I see Milton's videos the more idealistic and talking point he sounds.
Mike W That wasn’t the point, what he predicted came true
@@tommyrosati9326 What predictions? Did less regulations prevent the great depression? Assuming his age something he may have experienced.
He literally predicted what is happening in this nation today. Yet people still want to argue with these facts. It's frightening.
Absolutely. He has become my new intellectual because afterwards, I feel inspired. Very few people can eloquently speak on issues like these and produce them in a way that ANY one can understand.
@@malorie8557 yet his policies have caused widespread poverty and death.....
Dinohead86 Nooe, it’s the corrupt men who fail to apply his theories. Look, if you are using your computer to make a payment and you misspell one letter of the bill you’re filling in, you don’t say the computer is wrong, it is you who failed.
@@BorreLira if your theories involve coups and death squads then it is very much the theories fault.....
Guys pls do not praise this man his theories have led to million of people suffering around the world. He essentially wrote the play book for how South America should be financially fucked. And if you ever read of or know of the structural adjustment program ( sap) it's really terrible economics which creates a master and slave relationship. Capital should never be more powerful than labour
This guy makes so much sense it makes all my old assumptions scream. The more I listen to him, the more I realize just how ignorant I was.
It takes a lot to change your beliefs when given conflicting ideas! Good on you for being open to new ideas!👌
trufiend138 I suggest you read Adam smiths book. “The wealth of nations”. If you can read that entire book and still think that then nothing will change your mind. Either that or start your own business! You may have a very different view when your the employer and not the employee
@trufiend138 no amount of poverty has ever been able to make a difference! Profits allow people/businesses to have the extra capital to extend their reach! Whether it be by extra employment, by charity, or even by consumption, since one mans spending is another mans income! So I don’t buy the idea that the persuit of profit is somehow evil and uncompassionate! The absolute best thing I can possibly do for everyone around me is make more money than I need!
@@coryg121 that last sentence though!!! 👌🥵
Few sciences are more complex than economics. To borrow from the sayings, it’s harder than rocket surgery!
If I could have lunch with any 3 people, Friedman would be one.
Friedman, Jim Rohn and I would have to toss the coin between Carnagie and Bill Gates.
Friedman, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul. Wait... Who's paying for it? There's no such thing as free lunch. (Econ Joke)
+Promime I did not know this joke, thnx for sharing lol
+Promime I agree with you except Rand.
+Meri Holland I would have it with Friedman, Sanders, and Obama. ...... Just so Friedman could school the other 2 to the point where they hide under their beds.
Why is it greed to want to keep the money you earned but not greed to want to steal from those that have money?
GREAT FUCKING POINT!
The rich make money mostly from wealth grifted from the third world....
@@teachertrx1204 where does she live? A five eyes country? If so? That land was stolen...
@@santouchesantouche2873 Lands, the way you are referencing to, are not stolen, are conquered. It's a bit different.
@@FabianoMaiaFranco it's not.
_"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."_
-- Winston Churchill
10/10 quote if he actually said that
@@sungod9797 -- From a speech by Churchill in the House of Commons, 22Oct45.
@Victor Tronin -- The intelligent people don't need to discredit socialism. It does that all by itself. It has failed wherever it is tried.
Don't think it should be considered a vice. If you earn more by contributing more to others, you deserve to have it better. And you may be an inspiration for others to also do better.
Sure, some people can neither be inspired nor contribute much but then... How far should other people's efforts be redirected to taking care of such people? (Since that's what giving them money really means... That other people's work product is given to them, while they give little back themselves)
@@Leto2ndAtreides - I agree that it is not a vice. But since the point of the quote is to juxtapose something (a virtue) being good about socialism (which is impossible) against something (a vice) being bad about capitalism (which is possible, but _much_ less likely than socialism), I think Churchill was just taking literary license.
Minimum Wage was never meant to be a CAREER OPPORTUNITY, but a platform to learn skills for those who don't take the college route, or business route. Raising MW kills the job market and cause inflation because businesses must raise PRICES to offset COST of production. This is one way to kill an economy very fast.
You have a point, wages are a mechanism for sustaining the dependency of society on markets that are ultimately controlled by ownership rather than the working majority of the communities in which they operate. Milton forgets whose labor is paying its own wages by producing. It is obvious that ownerships sense of entitlement is an unsubstantiated claim of moral virtue by way of ownership. Friedman's economic theory has no scientific basis and is predicated on the legitimacy of a social system subject to the top down control of a class who grows richer by owning while everyone else grows poorer by working.
gary morrison Do you think wages are a subjective value by which the rich keep down the poor? Or do you think they are much more objective, where they are determined by a person's skills, education, and experience? You are mistaken, although the gap between top and bottom income brackets is large, it's simply not true that the same individuals who were poor a decade ago are poorer today, or that most people who were in the top one percent a decade ago remain their today. You are looking at society by abstract income groups, and not real flesh and blood individuals.
gary morrison if work makes you poorer ...why bother working?
Simple cost benefit analysis shows me that working more makes me richer not poorer.
Please stop this insanity, wages have nothing to do with prices. The money supply determines prices. Businessmen can't just *raise prices* because there's something called *demand*.
Andrés D. They also won't sell things for less than the cost of production.
Milton is so very right about minimum wage and welfare keeping people poor.
+Platewarp Yes, when there were no welfare, everyone was rich and there were no unemployment!
Unemployment Was actually much lower.
Every single country is Socialist: but only the countries With Capitalism have wealth.
Socialism is where there is collective ownership of the means of Production (usually administered by the state).
This does not change whether "the State" is a Warlord or a Democracy.
Capitalism is Private ownership of the means of production. All the wealthier nations throughout history have embraced it, and the Wealthiest allows for Anyone, even those born into poverty, to accrue Capital and become wealthy themselves.
+Free Information there needs to be unemployment or else we need more people
"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
The problem with our conservative friends is they spend so much time on telling others what liberals think, Should I listen to a liberal if I want to know what conservatives think?
@@sscalercourtney5486 you know that conservatives liberals exist?
@@elpibelol5005 Sorry, I'm not sue what you are referencing with your post.
That's my favorite political quote of all time.
@@sscalercourtney5486 The quote is true. I come from a highly educated liberal family. I was a "liberal" myself until the age of 40. Liberals aren't actually very tolerant people. The only things they are liberal with are drugs, sex, and spending other people's money.
The sad thing about this is that it's not just some random woman on the Phil Donahue show that thinks this way about investments, I watched a Robert Reich documentary and he can't get his head around the most basic concept of where the money from investments goes.
+Geoffrey Fence back into the pockets of the already wealthy. Everyone knows that.
TELLEMENT2000 Because you don't have any evidence for that. Wal*Mart encourages people employed there to get on welfare and then buy their stuff there, so they triple-dip... but that's only one example. Only the biggest businesses do stuff like that. Oil companies, computer companies, manufacturers, drug companies, etc...
So all that money they pay to people.... goes right back to them... so explain how it "isn't true," and you'll be a fucking liar. Which you are. Still.
Small businesses are started by people with small business loans. They are started by people who work hard and save up. Some are started with money given to them by their parents. Big businesses don't invest in competitors. Big businesses might get split by monopoly laws or by mergers or by dividing them, but they stay big business.
Which totally defeats your argument, which like most stupid arguments makes stupid assumptions based on surface details, or worse - something someone told you... which if someone told you something and it sounds way too simple, then it's usually bullshit.
In other words, your argument is bullshit, and I just told you why.
You'll probably only read the word "bullshit" and then whine about me belittling your argument, but your argument deserves belittling... mostly because it's bullshit.
TELLEMENT2000 Predictable, actually. You still chose to ignore everything except the insult. Cheers!
TELLEMENT2000 The evidence for that is pretty commonly well-known fact. A simple google search will show that it's true. Your denial of that is much like denying that there's a war in Iraq or there was a financial crisis in the 2000's... you're just denying when everyone knows.
The money for Microsoft came from inherited millions from Gates's parents. Intel was founded by millionaires and venture capitalists, not super-massive corporations. Dell was founded in 1984 by another millionaire. Sun was founded by Birkley graduates (millionaires), and Cisco was founded by a Stanford University alum who was in charge of the computer systems there (millionaire).
You're only bolstering my initial argument with these... do your own research.
Your argument is that "trickle down" economics is a viable system that creates a money flow that is ever lasting and unchanging.
I'm arguing that money goes to people who already have money (or rich families), and that large corporations do not fund competition. So far, my claim is consistently bolstered - even by your arguments.
All you do is shout "WRONG" like a little boy making a buzzer sound when he thinks he's right. Maybe even humming the Jeopardy song to himself while waiting for an answer... because that shit is and has always been immature bullshit.
well, you aren't wrong.
www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens
However, the government is part of the problem:
www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#7f3738b36881
thehill.com/policy/transportation/228836-obama-auto-bailout-was-the-right-thing-to-do
townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/20/sotu-fact-check-obama-bailed-out-banks-on-the-backs-of-the-middle-class-n1945592
It's not the corporations screwing us alone, it's the government allowing them to stand. You see we want perfection, and it's people like you who won't tolerate trade-off's, except at the expense of someone else. The problem is more nuanced than "the rich funnel money to the rich, the rich offshore and outsource, the rich buy out finance markets, the rich don't like competition". I don't think anyone is breaking the law here... So maybe you should as WHY. Why are they leaving the country? Why are they not falling to creative destruction or bankruptcy? Why are they so firmly invested in finance? The solution for most of the people on the left is to ignore the framework and work with the picture: TAX THEM, BURY THEM. Maybe you have a point, maybe you don't.
Instead of using Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill, Why don't we use Milton Friedman?
+Unknown Person Because Tubman saved lives of people who couldn't help themselves. Friedman wants them to die if they can't help themselves.
Anthony Edwards How do you come to that conclusion? becuase he doesn't agree that you should take someone elses hard earned money to support another person? Milton Friedman wants to give everyone the best opportunity to succeed. Capitalism is the best tool to remove people from poverty and innovate the world.
Unknown Person Yes... which means that a person who cannot afford to pay a toll on a road, or a bus fair or medical bills, or for their food... will die.
If by "remove" you mean make soylant green out of them, sure. I suppose that's accurate... but no.
The most humane system is co-operation, a uniform standard of living combined with incentives to compete and achieve.
Imagine a hybrid government of capitalism and communism. Imagine that nobody will ever be without a place to live, food, healthcare, education or sanitation... but if they want that big screen TV, or that laptop, or that guitar they wanted, they have to work. Say. Better yet, imagine that everyone gets offered the chance to innovate and an equal opportunity to have their name remembered throughout all history... if they achieve something truly great.
It would be like... what we have today... except nobody would be born with privilege.
Now I'm not the typical socialist this way. I'm pretty extreme, but hypothetically... wouldn't that really level the playing field for everyone? Then... people could TRULY achieve based on merit!
No... but merit isn't something you're interested in... You like a society that's based on luck of the sperm. You could be a complete idiot born to billionaires, and you're okay with that because that idiot deserves all that money. It's their right. Their divine right.
The divine right of kings... er... I mean capitalists. Yeah... that's... what I meant..
+Unknown Person Capitalism...or state capitalism? China have had most of the reduction in extreme poverty in the World. And its not because of free marked capitalism.
Boom...
Show this to Bernie Sanders!!
Foodie Thinker my take is that Bernie sanders actually knows the negatives of socialism. Most modern socialist candidates know this. They are socialist not because they believe it, but because socialism is attractive to your everyday voter. Churchill famously said that the biggest argument against democracy is to speak to the average voter for 5 mins. He said this because he knows the average voter is dumb, and dumb ppl like short term gains, such as “free stuff”. It is therefore not Bernie’s problem, but the people’s, that we keep getting popular socialist candidates for government.
@@Energysunn2215 what you're saying is, schooling/education is the core of the issue and it's government controlled. That is how you retain power. You teach them what you want them to know, more importantly, you have a lot of opportunity to "brainwash" people to your ideology of state is good and free enterprise is bad.
Foodie Thinker Bernie knows this. He's selling his nirvana to the uninformed. Bern is a fraud.
You people are so misinformed it’s unreal. We already live in a socialist country. That’s what Bernie Sanders says all the time. “It’s socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else.” Why is it ok to give Walmart, Delta airlines, Amazon and others millions of dollars in tax payer subsidies and handouts while they pay ZERO in taxes each year, while a mom and pop operation not only doesn’t get any types of government handouts, but are also expected to pay their share of taxes?
Milton Friedman lives in a Utopian universe where these multi billion dollar corporations and billionaires actually care about society. They in fact do not. As a matter of fact a corporation by law cannot care about anything but quarterly profits. CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to make shareholders the most amount of money possible. So they watch society and communities burn while taking in record profit after record profit, at the expense of people’s health and well-being.
@@snorkelfish _"Why is it ok to give Walmart, Delta airlines, Amazon and others millions of dollars in tax payer subsidies and handouts while they pay ZERO in taxes each year, while a mom and pop operation not only doesn’t get any types of government handouts, but are also expected to pay their share of taxes?"_ It isn't. Your comment only demonstrates your lack of understanding of Libertarianism. No one should be getting 'free' handouts off the backs of others, and yes that includes corporations.
_"Milton Friedman lives in a Utopian universe where these multi billion dollar corporations and billionaires actually care about society."_ Precisely the opposite. At least learn about Friedman's ideas before you attempt to criticize them.
_"CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to make shareholders the most amount of money possible. So they watch society and communities burn while taking in record profit after record profit, at the expense of people’s health and well-being."_ Yep, they do that quite a bit. But for some reason you're trying to blame it on Friedman's economics?
His clear-headed, common sense economics is refreshing and lays bare the muddled thinking of liberal progressives
+James Hernando Yeah, oversimplifying things that are way more complex than they seem
make stupid people feel comfortable with their pre-conceived notions.
TransN1ggerCo*k_420 Milton Friedman. The guy on the video. I realize how easy it is to get lost, but you got lost on the second post. Please try to stay with us.
I wish we had more people like this today.
"Why is it we have so many millionaires & everything" Ha Ha! Because this is a great country, thats why.
A great country where the majority don't see any of that greatness back in there paychecks, benefits or circumstances.
RJ G exactly, I agree with Friedman on alot of basic concepts but worker protections are neccessary
But what kind of worker protections, Jeff Boxing? To me, the greatest worker protection would be an immigration moratorium. But beyond ending the importation of more cheap labor, I'm not sure what else---at least that's reasonable"---that could be done.
John Miles a start would be mandatory paid sick leave across the board, mandatory paid maternity leave for employees over 1 year, id argue mandatory pension plans for 15 year+ employees, and wage laws that more accurately reflect labors value, i think its a fools errand to give the business owners the lofty title of "JOB CREATORS" when consumers and labor to equal market demand are both crucial components of a thriving economy. Workers are responsible for a level of profits earned in any given company, the labor force who goes out and meets the demand and overhead goals have an intrinsic entitlement to a share of the surplus created, obviously you need a profit to drive a business forward, but labor needs more resources to live healthy productive lifestyles (half of the country earns 30,000 and under, thats enough to just barely keep your head out of water) not to mention a healthcare system thats insured to every citizen, which if done properly takes the burden off of businesses to provide healthcare for competition and can instead reinforce those resources on wages. Pretty simple solutions for a more functional economy imo.
America has the highest disposable income rate in the world, how do we not see it back in our paychecks? That's exactly where we see it.
I miss Milton, one of the best (if not the best) economists of all time. Smart guy.
"They keep it under their pillows?"
"Nyoo...they invest it."
No shit, lady.
No they take a portion of the EXCESS and invest it. To help grow the economy? No. To help further the growth of their own wealth, and then you HOPE it helps grow the economy in the process. Here's your sign.
Yep. I remember people first raised taxes on Amazon, then picketed them when they started to leave. There was a survey of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, and when asked whether they would have started their business here given the current regulatory environment, majority of them said no. CA teachers are the highest paid but student results are the worst in the country. I can keep going.
Milton Friedman is the man!
+Devin Generalo Yes...and he wants YOU ! .... to work for him. On your knees and no complaining.
*****
I am living in one and they are doing pretty damn well I tell you :-D Ignorant fool.
Friedman the fraud, who appeals to the greedy dummies.
This clip should have hundreds of thousands views.
It does now! :)
This aged brilliantly
I've worked for small businesses owned by millionaires. They started poor, worked hard for 30 years and are now worth a million each. Secondly, the "rich" are constantly changing. Seventy percent of millionaires today were not born rich but worked to get there. So that means the next generation of millionaires are today's middle class. It's always so in a capitalist system, unlike others which dictate that you stay at the level where you are born, rich or poor.
A gentleman and a scholar. This is what heroes look like.
"Deregulation allowed corruption and greed to flourish"
I have a bridge to sell you if you think that our markets were 'deregulated'.
Regulators didn't do their jobs, because the politicians told them to back off, because the bubble was good for votes.
"For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket & trying to lift himself up by the handle"
Winston Churchill
When she said “factories” she knew she was about to be toasted lol
3:45 Milton became possessed for a second, the demon almost burst through.
One of the greatest men to have ever lived in this modern age.
Fascinating. It really is something to behild when a discussion is well thought out and given concise information
I love how these liberals argue with a world-class economist.
Lol they try.
There are other nobel prize winning economists who disagree with Milton. Don't be a lemming
Liberalism is pro-capitalism
@@selimfurkandalgic9548 This is true. Regan and Milton are Neoliberals. They are also part of the reason we are where we to with shit capitalism.
Americans need to travel to other countries. Most Americans of ignorant of anything outside of their own little world. I live in a country that adapted SOCIALISM after capitalism. It was not pretty. constant power cuts, bare shelves and other shortages. Production decline precipitously during socialism. Is capitalism perfect - NO but to be fair America practices Crony Capitalism. One of the best practitioners of capitalism used to be Hong Kong.
+buffteethr Anecdote, also a single example. There are at least 7 countries doing great because of socialism, including Germany, France, Denmark, and Sweden. Free college, free healthcare can only improve a country and it is in our best interests to try and improve things. We must continue to improve things. Either that or we just tell everyone "Sorry, this is where progress stops. We have exactly the right technology as we need. The Amish said it was the horse and buggy, but no. It was this. This lack of universal medical care, this fossil-fuel burning, slave-labor society."
History is repeating. "We can't get rid of slavery, it's a necessary evil, and where will we get our cotton?" Yet here we are, with cotton in every piece of clothing we own and slavery in the fields is no longer a thing
"Paying a living wage is too much!" Yet Henry Ford proved not only that it could be done, but that it made people able to buy the products they made... and increased profits.
Finally...
"Making education available for poor people will allow people to interpret their own religion!" and "...will allow people to overthrow their leaders!" and "...if we stop owning our serfs!"
Anyway you get the picture... but rich people don't. Rich people -- especially those today -- think in short-term goals. Increase profits, please the shareholders, make the company appear to be growing... and economics hasn't grown past the "grow your population and you grow your economy" model of the 1200s... the 1200s... the 13th century.... We still use the same economic model of the Monarchical world...
There isn't such a thing as "free healthcare" and "free education". How many of the countries that you mentioned have a population of 300 million people? U.S spends a big part (most) of its money on its army. The problem is not about taxing the people or not, is about distributing properly the money that is already being collected from taxes. What are you going to have when you raise taxes? A lot of rich people will evade taxes or leave the country to go to another one that lets them be rich. Our problem is not whether we are socialist or not, our problem is the government's lack of ability to distribute the money and yet the democrats are bashing the rich for the way they distribute the money...
Also those countries you mentioned developed their economies through capitalist principles and then adopted socialist ones after, and have been steadily declining since.
+Anthony Edwards All countries that have their defence paid for almost in total by the US. All countries that take advantage of the southern countries of the EU to help their economies grow.
Steady declining since? What you expect them to reproduce the growth rates after the world wars? And for them to exploit the southern countries? Yeah since they have free education and better wages many of the youth find it better there (including some of my friends). And don't talk about exploitation, the US did the same with Mexico through NAFTA
1. We need more people like him in our western civilization today. He is dearly missed. 2. One would also notice the civil exchange between both parties. Something that is becoming more rare these days.
Civil? He never stopped interrupting her. At least Peterson doesn't interrupt as much.
Yes corporate executives do need "checks and balances" to keep them fair and honest, and the only way to do that is consumer choice. We need to stop letting them use the gov't to pass laws, write tax codes, award contracts, etc. etc. that benefit them.
You can't keep the rich accountable by trying to use a monopoly of violence against them. They will always use it better than you. Keep gov't small and let the market keep them accountable.
Bingo! 😎👍
Now, it's not just affecting the Poor anymore. It's affect us who are Lower Middle Class Teens and Young Adults. Friedman hit the nail on the head here.
Milton nails the concept of minimum wage. Which is still true today! 3:13
The information available today at everyone's fingertips is nothing less than remarkable. Anyone with an internet connection (which is almost everyone in this country) can sit down, do a quick search and be well informed on almost anything. Those that choose not to is a cultural issue that government has not been able to fix. Start by giving all Americans excellent education as early as possible. Government disfunction seems to prevent that.
Say what you will about donahue , but you can't argue the fact that he put people like Milton Friedman on his show and had respectful debate
What I really respect about Friedman is his ability to explain economics to the layperson in plain English. No academic jargon, no appeals to authority, no snippy disrespectful remarks, just clear and respectful answers. He never insults the less educated, which is more than I can say of many lesser pundits today.
brilliant man whom the current government forgot
I’m in finance, and I also have post graduate studies in psychology, and almost decided to become a psychologist.
I’ve found the fundamental difference between people who want higher taxes, which is usually just punitive arbitrary taxes, and people who trend towards a “free market” approach (without going to the extremes like the Indian free market) is one of control.
The free market, is a delicate beast, it demands that you don’t force and coerce it. Otherwise equilibriums get busted, etc.
It’s a system where you can only control what you do. How you respond to conditions.
What people who want higher taxes (and there’s nothing wrong with fair taxes) desire is control over other people. They don’t like the fluidity of a free market. They want to control outcomes.
The free market is like a giant equation that takes all of the factors into account and spits out a bunch of results.
What these people who want control desire is to write the answers/results, and then contort the equation and the factors to suit the desired outcomes.
What motivates a desire for control??
Fear. The reality is these people are scared. Free market asks you, and you alone for the answer to your life. What are you going to do? And how are you going to react.
These people don’t want to ask that question. They want to know what can be done to make others behave as they want them to.
From This fear comes the other ugly side of it all. Jealousy/envy.
Poor people don’t envy the rich because they think they need a Ferrari. What they envy is the fact that if they were rich, their fear would be alleviated.
I used to also be a swimming teacher when I was younger. Fear is like drowning. And when you fear, you tense up and you drown.
These people, with their fear, their desire to control and their envy feel like they’re drowning. All they really want is to have the fear taken away.
They think, by taxing the rich, who they are already envious of, at punitive tax rates, somehow they will be beneficiaries of that policy and the fear and drowning will be taken away.
Better put. They’re drowning people at sea, and they will grab onto anything and anyone to feel a bit more secure and safe.
The fear people feel when drowning is so strong that often drowning people will grab into and hold under the person rescuing them and the rescuer will be killed. Parents have been killed their kids in that state of fear of drowning.
That’s what motivates these people.
They dress it up with ideas of morality etc. they refine it. But what they’re really concerned about, is alleviating the fear they have.
I'm sharing this reply, I'll credit the quote to your screen name. What a brilliant observation.
Strange take
I agree that class envy fuels socialism, a supposed class-less
society. class-less society is an illusion. there are 2 classes
in socialism > uber rich and working poor. the middle class is
eliminated, robbing the working poor of the "next rung" on
the ladder to advance. There is, by definition, NO advancement
in socialism as it creates a "wealth inequality".
You are also correct that the root of envy is fear. Fear of
not having enough, not being good enough, fear of not being loved. Fear, not hate is also the root of bigotry.
This fear is exploited by free lunch politicians like Bernie
Sanders ( a multi-millionaire with 3 homes) and AOC, who
drives a Tesla and sells $58 T-shirts.
Both of them are economic illiterates who are easily
beguiled by the fruits of capitalism even as they preach
against it.
"share it fairly but dont take a slice of my pie"
I dont begrudge anyone getting rich as long as they
didnt steal it. What I begrudge is the influence that money
buys you with easily bought politicians. There is the rot.
We dont need to eat the rich. We need to reign in the
politicians who become their lapdogs, instead of
protecting citizens from the excesses of the rich should
they occur.
The world's leading economist transcending time and death to continue to educate us even today.
Makes you wonder why they dont have people like Mr Friedman on TV anymore.
Milton was fairly bright. Boy this was a long time ago. I remember studying him in college.
Milton Friedman was outstanding economist and knew how to articulate the conservative cause!
Investing in education doesn't have a lot of conservative backing. Of course, if money was put into it, it would be invested in "schools" and not necessarily "education".
Schools are often weak providers of meaningful education and life skills.
I love how in these times, after small debates during lectures, people who debated would come out as if they were educated by what was said
When was this recorded?
While you have rich people investing in creating jobs, you forget the fact that they will in turn expect to receive a profit. When the rich people "trickle down" some wealth for the poor in the form of investment, in the long term they would receive an even higher amount of wealth from the consumers and in this case, it is usually shitload of money. The majority is being exploited by the rich rather than being better off and wealth overall is "trickling up" rather than down.
I love Friedman. Anytime I feel frustrated from the left, I can listen to Friedman and he makes sense.
what's the name/link of the Milton's TV show he talks about??
I'd love to see that series
It's called 'Free to Choose'. It's available on youtube.
@@SamMcinturff thanks dude
Too much capitolism can be as damaging as too much socialism, Liberalism middle road is the best system.
Hats off to Phil Donahue and this audience for letting the man speak.
"One of the first things Regan did was deregulate the banks."
So he got rid of the FDIC and Federal Reserve?
No?
Then he didn't deregulate.
Listen, take your life savings to a Casino, if you lose all of your money, we'll reimburse you 100%. If you win big, just give us a cut.
Tell me, are you going to gamble a lot if you have nothing to lose? That's the position the banks were in, and it wasn't because of a free market.
"A sense of proportion." I have come to realize just how many people don't have a sense of proportion about anything. A thought skill that so many people just don't seem to have. A very important skill needed to make logical comparisons and analogies.
@voogru What is the social optimum for a living wage? It's a general question, but make a specific point and go from there. With tech advances, production of most goods and services will require less human labor, but the profits of the owners of the means of production will increase. Does it end? And what happens to those that are not right/wealthy?
I am so thankful that I am the beneficiary of the kind of wisdom which directs the super rich to their single-minded purpose of pursuing their own interests! I realize that my livelihood depends solely on their greed, and my willingness to serve it. Thank you 🙏, thank you 🙏, thank you 🙏.
I will try to emulate your example- there is no greater aspiration for humanity. Thank you.
Milton fought to protect the inherited privilege of the noblest from the wickedness of the working majority. Milton was a warrior in the age old crusade of the aristocracy to stifle majority rule. That said, the nobility stand little chance of being deposed as long as they have the inherited right to make the rules.
There, there Gary. Maybe someday you'll make something of yourself.
Jenny R I understand you sleep with a loaded gun. Would you care to identify the race of "the aggressor" you imagine your arsenal of weapons to be a defense against?
Majority rule? Do you believe in a majority rule? What government in history ever surrendered its power to the people? Democracy is your choice between two individuals who have their own interests in mind.
gary morrison Race is a nonscientific concept.
any one know where to find those shows he was talking about?
Can someone please explain to me the economic rationale of wage minimisation and salary bonus maximisation? I would also like to know why Friedman blames poverty on government when Corporations themselves have wrenched government away from the people through corporate lobbying and party funding at levels far beyond any historical levels of funding.
We don't have a wealth inequality problem in America. We have a work ethic inequality problem, and subsequently, a tax inequality problem.
+Travro Bullshit. All our jobs were shipped over-seas. Are you saying rich people work harder than poor people? Bullshit. You try holding 2-3 minimum-wage jobs, barely get any sleep and then have people call you lazy. People like that have no time to defend themselves.
I actually do hold two jobs: I'm a firefighter, and a paramedic at a hospital. And I have a baby. I go days without sleep in general.
And guess what, I'm taking it on myself to save money and go back to college to get a higher paying job. I'm not blaming my problems on some guy who makes more money than I do and demand he pay for all my expense so that I can be comfortable in my American 'poverty', like the welfare recipients who flood our hospitals and jack up medical and insurance cost.
Sure, people can work hard in their minimum wage jobs, but if they lack the skills for more advanced employment - AND NEVER WORK TO OBTAIN THOSE SKILLS - then that's their fault.
Our jobs are still here, the real reason they're not getting filled is because we've got a growing unskilled labor force with crap liberal arts degrees and monumental college debt, not because corporations are greedy.
Quit making excuses.
Travro 2 jobs that can't be shipped overseas. Lucky you. Also... working 2 jobs? You selfish fuck. Taking jobs from Americans.
So wait; "Its your fault you can't work! Go to college!"
Then: "Your debt is your own fault! You should have known the job market was bad!"
God you're an idiot.
I have a technical degree, and so do most of the people I know - especially those coming out of college. Finding work in any technical field is almost impossible.
Why, you may ask? Probably not. You don't really seem to care at all... but I'll tell you anyway.
All of those jobs are in China and India and I don't have the money to commute. I know I know. It's my fault and I'm lazy. I should take a car, and then a boat and then a plane, and then travel back... right? Because that's how you do things.
So wait, you empathized with a hypothetical person loosing sleep over working '2-3 minimum wage jobs' but then called me a 'selfish fuck' for holding two jobs. Just pointing that out.
I'm going into tech myself, and yes I understand the outsourcing issue, but that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of jobs here. Type Java into indeed.com and you'll find literally thousands of software development jobs in any state. And all over 45-50k annual salary. They require experience, so internships may be necessary.
And by going to college, I actually meant trade school. Understand, however, if you do research, you'll find that degrees are only to get you noticed. You have to learn skills to make yourself marketable. So people have made mistakes getting into debt, but if a person couldn't foresee their degree in gender studies leaving them unemployed, well, blaming billionaires isn't going to get them anywhere.
-yours truly,
an idiot. ;)
Travro I was being facetious in regards to your two jobs. I'm sorry you didn't catch that. Glib humor is lost on some. I was calling you a hypocrite for calling poor people lazy when you do the same thing that they do, but they do it for less money and have had less opportunity to get a better job.
There was a tech bubble, and yeah, there's actually an interesting thing about all those local jobs.
There was a wonderful video shown by NBC of a meeting with a big company telling employers to ask absurd questions to interviewees and told them they had a quota to fill, but to not hire American workers, because you could get cheaper workers in India.
Look it's not as cut and dry as either of us make it out to be, but for someone who graduated from a trade school, you sure are making a lot of assumptions about degrees and what they can offer... any degree can get you in the door for a number of jobs, even a liberal arts degree... and Google it. The number of jobs available for liberal arts degree graduates are astonishing...
But I don't know a single person with a liberal arts degree, or who is going for one and I went to three colleges. One - a Tech school taught me nothing and fleeced me. The second - a community college, prepared me for the university I was going to go to by doing what? getting an Arts degree. Why did I pursue an Arts degree? Because it had all of the credits required to achieve my Masters in Anthropology, and create a path to achieve my doctorate.
Even a Philosophy degree is useful. Many anthropologists and political scientists/speech writers/pollsters/pundits have philosophy degrees.
You might even consider a degree in Anthropology useless, but anthropologists make a lot... a lot of money if they work with pharmaceutical companies, land surveyors, casinos, they work as diplomats and translators and so on.
Anyway, I followed that red herring way too far.
I'll just post a list of jobs held by Gender Studies graduates.
Administrator of a human services department
Advocate for victims of domestic violence and hate crimes
Artist
Associate director of a human rights organization
Business owner
Clergy
Communications consultant
Congressional aide
Coordinator of a women’s health clinic
Director of social service agency
Executive director of a foundation
Film production assistant
Flight instructor
Journalist
Law enforcement officer
Librarian
Manager of energy conservation
Musician
Novelist
Nurse practitioner
Physician
Professor
Program director of a rape crisis center
Psychologist
Psychotherapist
Public health educator
Public relations director
Social worker
Teacher
Theater staff
Town manager
Union organizer
Soaking the rich does work. It just depends on how you look at it. If you want to improve opportunities, products, and services for everybody, it's a really bad idea. However, if you want to keep "undesirable" people out of the work place, limit competition, pit one group against another, or collect taxes in a manner that fools people into thinking "others" are the only ones paying them, it works like a charm.
This is for people that believe “wages do not affect prices.”
I may be out of my depth, but as a musician with no economic background, this is my understanding and reasoning of that statement. Please feel free to correct any logical fallacies I may have run into while reasoning through this lengthy comment.
If I were to take on the evaluation of prices not being affected by wages, then the first thing to do would be to analyze what does affect price increases. The answer comes to me using the basic concept of supply and demand in the form of regulations and sanctions.
When a product is heavily regulated or a trading nation has been sanctioned for reasons arbitrary to economics (ie proxy war, political motivation, or ideological differences), the result is either an increase in the costs of materials through regulation or a reduction of supply through sanctions.
Now if the costs of product materials increase, then the prices increase. And if the demand for products remains level but the supply diminishes, prices increase. The result of either of these cases is the cost of living goes up. When the cost of living goes up, the popular answer for the disparaged is to increase minimum wage, which would reduce the number of jobs a company can provide as they have limited operational costs. This means that although some people gain more hourly earnings, others lose theirs entirely.
So in essence, if wages do not affect prices, the counter is not true. Prices do affect wages due to unreasonable societal demand (which should not be the case). And these price changes effects on wages then reduce the amount of people that can be employed, meaning higher rates of poverty. Even if the wages didn’t increase, the jobs would reduce by virtue of the increase cost of materials the company must now operate under. The only answer to this is to de-regulate the marketplace, which would allow for businesses/job creators to purchase cheaper materials and hire more workers, which then allows for the distribution of wealth to more people, which in turn reduces the rate of poverty.
Now to dismiss the original statement for a realistic approach. If companies were not forced to pay higher wages they can’t afford to pay, then more potential businesses could be created, creating more avenues of supply for the demand and thus reducing prices while simultaneously creating jobs for workers who have themselves been disparaged by the potential wage and price increases demonstrated through the loss of employment otherwise termed “layoffs.”
In conclusion, the statement “wages do not affect prices” is simply not true by any logical standard. Their inter connectivity is irrefutable at an intellectual, abstract and even individual level.
Thank you for reading. I hope to have interesting debates about this topic in the future.
Phil Donahue...whether or not he agreed with his guest, gave them an opportunity to answer and express their views without yelling at them. Wish panel shows were like this today.
Woman: These big men making oooodles and ooooodles of money don't need it.
Friedman: And what do you suppose they do with it, put it under their pillows?
Woman: Nyyyoooo
lol just the way she talks is enough to make me laugh.
i think milton friedman just gave us the reasons of china succes
china economy is fake they created the realestate boom for which they have no market for and thats why you have all the ghost cities all over the place
The truth about economics is that it forces a person to be productive and smart if they dont want to be left behind. It is nature and competition it its rawest form which is why so many pretend not to understand it or do anything they can to go around it rather that take the hit and grow. This is why marxism will always have people fighting for it despite thinkers like Adam Smith, Miltom Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Jordan Peterson etc. laying down the rules and path that one needs to follow in order to succeed.
Brilliant summation, sir! We have a great economic system, imperfect that it is. It's just that too many people fail to do the necessary work, make personal sacrifices or take the personal responsibiliy required to succeed under that system. Those people somehow take a certain comfort in believing they are a "victim", without which belief their lives would be intolerable, as it would be an admisssion of failure.
Political explanations have come to dominate the thinking of so much of society. These people don't understand that most issues require extensive exercise, knowledge, and information. It's much easier to accept an easy-to-digest political answer that paints things in simplistic terms and usually casts the believer in the role of the "good guy" and some other people as morally inferior.
I wish Bernie Sanders supporters would see this.
+Monsieur Candie They are too willfully ignorant to.
+Monsieur Candie They have felt Milton Friedmans policies their whole lives and are fed up with it.
It goes above their heads.
To truly understand money they have to understand numerous things they've been told are wrong and were told exactly what they want to hear.
If I were American, I would have supported Bernie Sanders. Friedman says that corporations invest their money in the company, when the current reality is they hoard it in offshore bank accounts, doing no good for the domestic economy. Seattle’s increase in the minimum wage and subsequent relative economic success refutes what Friedman has to say about minimum wage.
milty is so badass.
Your statement proves that Friedman is more right today than he ever was. If it pays for the rich to move their money offshores, that's what they're going to do. If you tax them less you incentivize them to keep their money in the US. This is perfectly consistent with Friedman's political philosophy.
We are living under the question mark if we should push hard forward or consider it a dead end, make a u turn and resume from a previous checkpoint. I think we should go back and start again from the points were already made by Friedman. It went well for a while and then we kind of forgot why it went well and dropped core values on the way
I think it is simpler to analyze when you see the big picture. In this freemarket society power acumulates more and more in fewer and fewer people, no other way. And is of no interest of society (in my opinion, not even for those people who control everything) that a few people have all the power, just like monopolies are not good for economy. This is a power monopoly. In order for that no to happen, you must regulate power acumulation. In the government you could (at least in theory) do that by voting. You cannot vote for corporations, and once they became so big, you cannot fight them through competition either. The solution, the people must vote fot governments that don´t support this corporativist model, and act accordingly.
Hillary Clinton should watch this clip.
The people who ask the question always seem to speak in generalities when Friedman starts to ask probing questions in order to get down to the bottom of their original question which was also very general.
What chip do I have on my shoulder? Could you clarify the link between socialist economics and Zeus?
I'd be happy to PM you.
Friedman accidentally makes a really good point here about one of the weaknesses of free-market capitalism.
Wealthy people investing their capital in factories, machines and other productive assets is obviously a good thing as these investments produce benefit for all of society.
The problem now is that so much of this wealth is "invested" into unproductive, unimproved real estate. I'd argue that real estate "investment" is even worse than unproductive, as it disincentivises the occupier of the property from making actual, real, job-creating investment into the property (such as a new kitchen in a residential property or a fibre-optic internet termination in a commerical property).
You are absolutely right.
I'm a free market guy, but basically after the crash of 2009, the politicians colluded with the central banks to keep interest rates artifically low which drove up the value of stock and real estate for rich people, while the hard working poor got hammered by inflation.
You don't want capital being sunk into real estate for exactly the reason you mentioned. Capital should go to starting new businesses and developing new products and creating wealth.
Where I am from in Canada, there has been so much emphasis on real estate that it literally drives the whole economy, an the pending correction is going to be devastating.
You made a very astute observation.
How is wealth-creation in the form of an estate a bad thing? We need more wealth of that sort, not less. It isn't the economic transactions which matter but if people get desirable lives.
@@mouwersor The problem is that this form of wealth shrinks the "economic pie" rather than growing it. Nothing physical has been created, and in fact there are now less incentives to improve the land because the owner and occupier are separate entities.
The fact that some people's lives have been improved by this gamble is more than offset by the people who have been priced out of the market by unproductive speculators.
(Certain types of investment, such as buying a house on a large block and replacing it with 4 townhouses are obviously not unproductive, but this is unfortunately the exception rather than the norm)
This is very old footage. They used to invest in this country and jobs here. They create jobs in other countries now, and don't repatriate the money. They pay taxes to other countries instead and no longer share in their profits with employees the way they used to when they were made to. They are working on doing away with the middle class and minimum wage so we can compete with 3rd world countries for our employment. It fits with the business model that increases their profits. What makes you think it is going to benefit anyone but the very top at any time in our future without reinstating the safeguards that kept them from keeping it all to themselves? The gap between rich and poor widens as the middle class deteriorates.
And the United States is no longer truly capitalist.
Harley Mitchelly
Free market Capitalism will always fail, because when you introduce the human factor, corruption will always seep in. We can take what we've learned and improve on it to create a truly democratic society. Working for a dictator who tells you what to do, what to wear, what to say, when you can eat, where you will spend 8 hours a day and often what you do or say in your private time is nothing near freedom. If you've ever played a game of Monopoly, then you should know that Capitalism is a game that ends with only one winner. It takes a long time, but in real life, it is happening.
Kellie Nicholson And it is so funny. I have played Monopoly a few times in my life when I was young. I won all but one time. Every game I ever played, I played to win. I played by the rules, of course. A game is a competition, usually. I never felt that way about real life, just games. People that have more billions than they could ever spend on themselves, are treating real life like a game. They may or may not be playing by the rules, but that is why the rules are important. The rules need to keep as many as possible in the game, because it is people's lives. We had rules that worked well with capitalism for a while there--busting up monopolies and an economy supporting taxing rates such, but the super-rich rewrote so many of the rules through the politicians they purchased (more rule changes to assist them in that endeavor) that their personal profits soared into many billions and increase more steadily in recent years. And then you have people that talk about the rich getting soaked after they increased themselves at the expense of others--who would have been paying the taxes on those dollars instead, had they actually trickled down. Shame on them for fooling so many people. Shame on the people letting them fool them, too. They make the fooled fools think they will get to pay less in taxes, too. The foolers get tax breaks and don't send the money down. The foolee pays higher rates in taxes and pays more for rising costs, but doesn't get the usual raises in pay when productivity is up. Government under republicans gets less revenue and cuts social nets for those that fall hard due to the supply side skew, while they prop up those that are doing very well, catches them if they fall, refusing to have them contribute one bit more to their good deal they have had going here. Eventually, yes, they will have no demand side here, so we become a viable labor pool to maximize profits when they sell our stuff made with cheap labor to other countries that maintained a middle class. If and when they defeat any of those countries too, or all of them, they will lord over us all completely. They tell people the rich are the ones getting soaked. The people are sinking, drowning, under water, and the super-rich will just sail away without tossing a donut or saying thanks for allowing this.
Andi Amador
You do know that the power of the vote can undo all this. The evil rich will cry out that it is unfair for them to pay more. The way to beat them is to take the profit before they get their hands on it. How? Democratic worker cooperatives. Also when these businesses collect billions on subsidizes they outcome is they are nationalize the business. Then they just up and leave after all that society spent on them. We are told they owe us nothing. Then it is time to Occupy the workplace. Dr R. Wolff and others.
Johnny, exactly! I love Professor Richard Wolff, too, and Yanis Varoufakis, the finance minister of Greece, and Bernie Sanders. If only people would awaken to the fact that there are better ways for all of us.
Citizens United wouldn't matter if people would do some research before they vote. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people only read headlines. I'm glad to see some awakening here, though. Wait until it gets worse and watch the chaos ensue.
The thing is, you need something as a checks and balances to make sure big corporations are being fair and honest. Without it, they have no incentive to do the right thing, and you know darn well they wouldn't. They do whats right for THEM, and nothing else matters.
This leads back to my original point. The problem is always greed. People at the top begin to want so much, that their want overrides their needs, and the needs of everyone beneath them, to where they considered a commodity.
McDonalds doesn't make money off of you buying a hamburger. McDonalds makes money off of the restaurant purchasing the ingrediants to make you a hamburger to purchase. This is why prices vary between different McD, unless it is an advertised price. I work for McDonalds. Our biggest competition isn't other fast food restaurants, it's other McDonalds.
Amazing that this video is still so so relevant today.
Yes, McDonald's is ENTRY level, people need to stop thinking every job on the planet should provide a living wage! If every job has to pay top dollar, overall we will have fewer businesses, services and products. It is okay to let teenagers fill low level jobs at low pay so they can learn things like: showing up to work on time, listening to directions of a supervisor, how to interact as a team, customer service. It is a mutually beneficial situation, McDonald's gets lower skill work for low pay and the low skill employee gets some pay while upscaling his skill level so he can get a better job in the future!
Anyone who has a way and a will to start a business should be allowed the freedom to do so. The right to fail or succeed is one of the things that makes America so attractive to the rest of the world. The government in all its incompetence needs to stay out of the business of business.
follow up question, what is the source of profit accrued by the capitalist after he/she invested it? In other words, why does capital grow?
This man never fails to amaze me
I don't understand. Can someone please explain to me how the only decade we've ever had in our history that was referred to as the "happy 50s" was because of capitalism when it was high government regulation, taxation, and spending that gave it to us. We had strong unions, strong banking regulation, extremely high tax rates, and of course investment in our education and training programs. Even the minimum wage was higher in real terms. How can anybody defend Friedman after seeing the result of what actually happens when the government invests heavily in the economy?
+Ajay Pasricha lol bullshit. people didnt really pay taxes, and unions werent really that strong
+Ajay Pasricha The United States was doing so well economically in the 50s because all of our global industrial competition had been bombed into oblivion.
The United States benighted greatly in the post war period because of the benefits that it leased from things like the lend-lease act which brought tremendous wealth from foreign countries to the United States. Also, it also helped the economy when Kennedy lowered those "super high tax rates." When Friedman was speaking it was also a time of strict regulations and high taxes- the late 1970's where America was not doing well.
+2910687 Nice attempt to rewrite history. The 50's saw the birth of the 8 hour day and the 7 day workweek as a standard. The Unions were being attacked with claims of "communism" because of their power, and the idea of the "tax haven" was still relatively new.
People were trying to hide their income, but they were paying much more in taxes than they were today. Sure the 1950s were the start of the wealth hoarding following the Great Depression, but we are in the "Golden Age" of wealth disparity today, as a result of this trend snowballing.
Geoffrey thinks Kennedy's tax breaks helped the country...
However Kennedy also;
Increased the minimum wage.
Expanded unemployment benefits.
Boosted Social Security benefits to encourage workers to retire earlier.
Spent more for highway construction.
We had an economic boom during the 50s because we were the only large industrial nation that hadn't been bombed to pieces during WW2. Taxes were structured differently with many deductions not available now.
Completely agree there mate. I feel like a lot of people mistake my distain for greedy corporations as a liking of government control, but for me it's simply the lesser of two evils.
I was referring to innovation in general including production.
Beacuse flipping burgers will give a lot of useful skills to climb up the ladder and become rich yourself one day!
+Javier Diego Fernández Chaparro Plata if u know nothing... u will end up flipping burgers only, the world is not utopia
I wonder how Milton supposed the government should provide good social services when the highest earners don't pay their taxes...
+Bucketheadhead High earners pay the vast majority of taxes in the US. By doing a quick google search I found that the top 10% of earners pay 68% of all federal income taxes. So what are you talking about?
+BigMathis Add up the number of dollars of unpaid taxes by the top 10 corporations.
+Bucketheadhead That's because of loopholes. Loopholes and low taxes are not the same thing. I don't like higher taxes on the rich, but I think all the corporate loopholes need to be plugged.
+Bucketheadhead People don't mind paying tax at reasonable rates. They will turn themselves into pretzels to avoid high rates. I'm a tax attorney. I've seen it many times.
+Evaleen Davis Except in countries with the highest taxes and coincidentally the best social services, people happily pay their taxes.
A woman who had not actually thought about the issue she thought she'd been thinking about.
lol yep!
To say this man is brilliant is an injustice.
No. Just an idealist. He was incorrect within the first minute. Companies reinvesting funds don't always benefit people. Especially today's terms where investments go to i.e. hedge funds and people including the employees don't see it.
So the minimum wage which is currently $7.25 would prevent a multibillion company from hiring qualified individuals? If $7.25 an hour is too excessive for a multibillion company then I would fear without the minimum wage what the hell this multibillion company would pay workers hence why we have a federal minimum wage because of greed like this.
In europe it's impossible to hire young people and young unemployment is 40%.
He has a decent point about minimum wage, but inflation and rental costs have gotten so severe minimum wage is pretty much necessary now in the US. In the earlier years his idea would probably work though.
I understand that, I'm thinking along the lines of cost buying or renting a factory over there to begin with.
This is early on in the 1980s, Milron Friedman's ideas led to offshoring of jobs to China and destruction of middle class.
Milton Friedman's ideas led to the 2008 economic crash, the idea that refulation is bad for the economy is a key to Milton Friedman and and Reaganomics.
bravo. most impressiv. I shall frame this in my collection.
@Voogru Do you know where I can find the television program Donahue mentioned in this interview?
I took a brief look at your arguments with people who vehemently disagree with you, and I think you are spot on. If you haven't seen the videos of a "Former Soviet Citizen" arguing with people about Capitalism and Socialism, you should check him out, real arguments from real life. Shows Friedman's arguments played out.
He said that minimum wage makes McDonald's to raise the price of their hamburguers, and then said that that doesn't happen only to McDonald's, actually implying that others companies should do that too. So my question is... the summation of the raise in the goods that are being sold, doesn't feed inflation?
The fact that you would make such a sweeping judgement about someone simply because they disagree with you on one subject says way more about you then me.
Eliminating the minimum wage doesn't guarantee more skilled work for more people. A place like McDonald's where they micromanage every task already knows how many employees are required at any given time.
3:46 An alternate universe temporarily phases in where Friedman is giving the same response at the same time
I feel sad that he is no longer alive among us in days like these that we would have benefited from his judgment