Professor Milton Friedman: Equality and Freedom

Source:David Whitehead- "The great Milton Friedman on equality and freedom."

Source:The New Democrat

“Milton Friedman – Equality and Freedom”

Source:Basic Economics- Professor Milton Friedman giving a lecture n 1978.

From Basic Economics

Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders and company, argue that it's somehow wrong that we have people who make a lot of money, while we have some people who make very little money and in some cases don't make any money at all, that having a wealth gap ( which is also called income inequality ) is somehow unfair.

That it's somehow unfair for an associate lawyer ( let's say ) at a law firm to make 250,000 dollars a year ( depending on where they work ) while a janitor at a school makes 25,000 dollars a year and perhaps has a second job just to pay his bills. Even though the lawyer not only has a law degree and spent at least years in college and law school to get that law degree and did well in college and law school and now has the skills and education to be a successful lawyer.

While the janitor might just have a high school diploma and maybe he doesn't even have that. And only has enough skills and knowledge to do menial tasks ( let's say ) where a professional education isn't required. Like doing janitorial work or driving cabs or whatever the non-college educated job might be. Even though being just an average lawyer or a good one is a lot harder that being a good janitor, because there's a lot more you need to know about the law than you do in keeping your place of business clean for people to be there.

Professor Milton Friedman, went the opposite route and argued that it's a good thing when the lawyer or businessperson or entertainer or whoever the successful person in life might be who makes a lot of money is a good thing, because they earned their money based on their skills, knowledge, and production. That the reason why business people make a lot more money than let's say service industry workers, is because the college educated workforce has a lot more skills and knowledge and that there's a lot more work involved in what they do. Compared with service industry workers who in a lot of cases aren't even blue-collar workers, but do jobs where you might not even need a high schools diploma to be successful at.

My point about so-called income inequality or what I call the wealth and skills gap has always been that the problem with the American economy and American capitalism has never been that we have too many rich people or that we even allow for people to have wealth and even a lot of money, but that we don't have enough rich people and upper middle class people. But instead have too many poor people. If we didn't have 1-5 Americans living in poverty in America, would anyone even on the Left be talking about what they call income inequality? If we had 1-10 Americans or 1-20 Americans who fall below the Federal poverty level, would poverty be an issue for anyone in this country who isn't poor themselves or donates to or works for charities? I doubt it would be because poverty wouldn't be visible at all for most of the country.

If you want less poverty or even a lot less poverty in this country, you do that encouraging people to be successful. You do that by encouraging and empowering as many Americans who want to be successful in this country to be successful. To get the education and skills that they need to make it in America and have the economic freedom that middle and upper income Americans have. You don't do that by heavily taxing the wealthy simply to take care of the poor. Or giving people middle incomes to people for choosing not to work and telling Americans that they don't need to work hard, get good skills, and be productive in order to live well in this country.

The Open Mind With Richard Heffner: Milton Friedman: What is Actually Wrong With Socialism?

Source: Philosophy Insights- Professor Milton Friedman-

Source:The New Democrat

What is wrong with socialism? Where should I start? First I guess I'll tell you what actually seems to work about socialism in other countries and to a certain extent in America even. Even though America has more of a pragmatic progressive approach to social welfare, instead of the welfare state approach that you see in Britain and Scandinavia where their social programs are universal instead of just for people who truly need extra financial assistance in order to pay their bills.

But there's a flip side to what actually works about socialism in lets say Scandinavia to use as an example. If Scandinavia were a country instead of a region that includes Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and even Iceland, if you include Iceland as part of this broader Nordic region of countries, Scandinavia would be one of the largest countries in the world, especially if you throw in Greenland, as far as territory. But with only twenty-five-million people which would make a fairly small country in population.

That is important because Sweden, Norway, and Finland, are all large countries as far as territory. Sweden is almost as big as Turkey as far as land and most people I believe don't realize that, but Sweden only has ten-million people and they're one of the wealthiest countries in the world as far as per-capita income and over living standards and there also one of the most socialist countries in the world as far as what their national government spend on their's people's behalf and the amount of money the Swedish Government spends on social welfare. Turkey on the other hand as over seventy million people making it a big country as far as land and population. Why is that?

Scandinavia is deep as far as natural resources including oil and gas. Norway and Sweden, are two of the largest oil and gas producers in the world and they both have very small populations, but with a lot of territory. Because of all the oil and gas revenue that Sweden and Norway bring in through taxation and interest their government's have in their energy sectors, they can afford to be very socialist with their people. Because even when they go through an economic downturn or slowdown they're still bringing in all of that energy revenue.

Unlike America which is third largest country in the world in territory, only behind Russia and Canada and with the fourth largest population in the world, we're still importing both oil and gas. We have to be more conservative with our tax revenue and expect our people to do more for themselves. Especially mentally and physically able people. That was my more positive take on socialism.

Again, what's wrong with socialism? Where should I start? How about with the presumptions that Socialists especially in America who want America to look more like Europe tend to make.

Socialists tend to look at the world as a big complicated place and that if you let all of the people enter the world with the freedom to make their own decisions, some people might make some really good decisions and do really well, but others and perhaps a lot of other people will make some really bad choices and do badly. Leaving the society having to pick up the slack for the people who haven't done well in the economy. So according to the Socialist you need to have a big centralized government with all of these progressive minded (as they see it) intellectuals in their central- planning offices, with the power to decide for everyone else most of those people they've never even met let alone know, what the people need to live well in their Socialist Utopia.

In other words a big welfare state there to take care of everyone so the people don't have to make impossible decisions like where to send their kids to school. Where to get their health care. Where to get their health insurance. Who should take cake of their kids when the parents are working. How people should fund their retirements. Pay for their family and medical leave. And these are just examples. Perhaps even where to live and where to work.

And then Socialists will say that, "hey, it works in Scandinavia and Europe, that means it will work in America as well." Socialists also tend to see the world as one place where there aren't many differences economically between one country or another and that if something seems to work in country, that means it will work everywhere else. Forgetting about cultural and economic factors from one country to another.

Like the fact that some countries have deeper natural resources than others. Or that Americans tend to be a lot more individualistic and freethinking than most other countries regardless of race and ethnicity and tend to want to do more for ourselves and expect more from ourselves than Canadians and Europeans tend to.

But I already explained why the democratic form of socialism seems to work in Scandinavia. Because you're talking about small countries as far as population, but large countries as far as territory and natural resources. Including natural resources to power their countries that so-called Progressives in America (Socialists in actuality) tend to hate and want to see outlawed in America. Like oil and gas.

The reasons why socialism wouldn't work in America, again has to do with cultural more than anything else. Americans by enlarge (except for Bernie Sanders and his supporters and others) like being able to take care of themselves and making their own decisions and then being rewarded for those decisions when they do well. You start taxing income and production at high levels and you'll get less of it. Because Americans will say why should they work so hard and be so productive when Uncle Sammy is going to take so much of my money from me to give to his nieces and nephews.

So what will happen is a lot fewer of Uncle Sam's nieces and nephews will work hard and be less productive, because their annoying greedy uncle is taking away from them so much of what they produce. Which will be a drag on economic and job growth because our economy won't be as productive. Also it would hurt our education because Americans will decide why should they work hard in school and get a good education when their Uncle Sam will pay them well not to work when they're out-of-school with generous Unemployment Insurance checks. Which is also what you get in Sweden.
Source:Philosophy Insights

Bastiat Institute: Milton Friedman- On Poverty (1978)

Source:Bastiat Institute- Professor Milton Friedman, I'm sure with an excellent point. (Pun intended)

Source:The New Democrat

"Milton Friedman from a 1978 lecture given at Stanford University regarding the responsibility towards the poor."

From the Bastiat Institute

Milton Friedman, making a great point for why inner cities are depressed having to do with poverty, bad schools, the awful War on Drugs and at the time back in 1993 pre-Welfare to Work, the bad Welfare system that encouraged low-skilled low-income adults, especially with kids, not to work, but to get on public assistance, because of all the government benefits that came from not working back then. 

The breakdown of low-income families where the father in many cases not in the picture, leaving the mother who doesn't have much of an education to raise her kids by herself, these were big reasons for the Los Angeles riots of the mid and late 1960s, as well as Detroit. And reasons for big inner city poverty today.

You reduce poverty in inner cities not by increasing government cash assistance, but by making quality education K-12 available for everyone. Especially for people who come from single-parent low-income communities and families. As well as making higher education affordable for everyone. 

You have a Welfare system that encourages work and independence over unemployment and government dependence. And that means making education and job training a requirement for everyone who doesn't have it, but is collecting public assistance, even if they're working. 

You don't abandon low-income communities, but instead encourage economic development there. Rebuild schools and and have school choice especially for low-income parents and students.

Instead of putting public housing units in the worst neighborhoods possible, stop doing that all together. And encourage private companies to build affordable housing with subsidize rent for low-income families. As you're doing community policing and reducing crime in those communities. 

You also eliminate the War on Drugs and instead fight illegal narcotics as a public health condition for the users and you're improving education with choice,  better schools, more economic development, quality affordable housing, a Welfare system that encourages independence over dependence, through education and work and not more cash benefits. As well as more infrastructure investment and you would see more people moving into Detroit and Cleveland (to use as examples) instead of leaving there.

Poverty and ghettos, didn't happen by accident. Bad government policy are a reason for how it happened. As well as bad personal choices by too many Americans. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having communities that are dominated by one particular race or ethnicity. Until that community is economically depressed, because of lack of education and economic development, that is when it becomes a government problem, because that community will end up consuming a lot of public assistance and receiving Welfare instead of paying into it. 

Poverty is bad for everyone else in the economy because you have more people collecting from public assistance, instead of paying into it, which also hurts economic growth having communities that simply can't afford a lot of the products that the private sector is producing. Which is why economic development, quality education and productive Welfare system that moves people off of public assistance, are so important.

Liberty Pen: President Clinton's 1993 Task Force on The Economy: Milton Friedman- Deficits & Government Spending

Source:Liberty Pen-Professor Milton Friedman.

Source:The New Democrat

Unless you're a very wealthy American, good luck finding someone who doesn't have at least some debt. Car payments are debt, mortgage's are debt, student loans are debt, business loans are debt, etc. It is not so much a question of whether a government, organization, or individual, carries debt, but how big of a debt do they carry relative to their income. Deficits, are one way you pick up debt. Simply by spending more money than you take in and for each year in a row you do that, the higher your debt is going to be. And depending on your ability and record of paying your debts, as well as the general health of the economy will determine how much interest you'll have to pay on you debts.

In the early 1990s, America had a recession of 1990-91, plus a high deficit and debt to GDP ratio. Meaning our budget deficit and national debt was high compared with our national economy. And as a result with weak economic growth and high unemployment to go on top of all of those issues, we had a pretty weak economy until 1994. President's George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as well as two Democratic Congress's, addressed the debt and deficit in the early 1990s. Both in 1990 and 1993 and those two deficit reduction acts that had bod new revenue and budget cuts, as well as two major trade deals and the technology boom of the early and mid 1990s that we're really still in twenty-five years later, led to the 1990s economic boom. Where by 2000 we were actually talking about paying off the national debt. How times have changed.

In a perfect world where I've yet to visit or have seen, I would never want to run a deficit and debt unless the overall economy is weak. Generally speaking one of the last things you want to do is owe money to countries that don't have your best interest at heart and have those costs passed on to your taxpayers. But if you're economy is growing steady and your job growth is running steady and your deficit and debt ratios are relatively low, which means your interests rates will also be low and you'll have a strong currency as a result, you can run a small to moderate deficit. Just as long as you're managing your government spending properly and you keep deficit under control. And at the very least don't allow for it to grow faster than your economy.
Liberty Pen: President Clinton's 1993 Task Force on Deficits and Government Spending

Phil Donahue Show: Professor Milton Friedman (1979)

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

Source:The New Democrat

Phil Donahue, is probably as far-left as a TV show host could be, at least in his time. And yet even with his staunch slant and support for government interference, government assistance and government taxation, he was a hell of an interviewer. Especially when it came to intelligent people who came from lets say the opposite side of the political spectrum. Someone like a Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would be another example. Not sure if he ever interviewed Bill Buckley, but that would’ve been a great interview and show as well. Donahue, would let his guests speak. He would also make his case and they would have a back and forth. And he would also get his audience involved.

What you had in Phil Donahue, was a Collectivist. From the left in the form of a Progressive, or even Progressive/Socialist. Making the case that private enterprise, private enterprise and even capitalism come with risks. If not dangerous and perhaps are even bad things. But its better than Marxism and total state-ownership when it comes to economics. But if we’re going to have capitalism and private enterprise, they need to be well-regulated, which means highly regulated, for someone with a more Socialist background. And you need a government big enough to take care of people who don’t do well in the private enterprise system.

Milton, didn’t come the exact opposite direction on the Right. Because he did believe in things like regulations when it came to the environment. And even came out for reforming the safety net, instead of eliminating it. But he didn’t like high taxes and highly centralized government and wanted as little government, especially the Federal Government involvement in the economy. So you would have Donahue in this interview always not just making the case for government and even central government involvement in the economy, but making the case for more government involvement in the economy. And yet these two men could have a very good and productive discussion and debate on these issues. Because they actually listened to each other.
Source:The Milton Friedman Foundation

Econ Corner: Milton Friedman Schools Brainwashed Socialist on School Choice

Source:Econ Corner.

Source:The New Democrat

The man in this video trying to explain why school choice does not work even though he failed to do that and at best laid out some of the disadvantages that poor Americans especially African-Americans face in this country was just repeating talking points of leftist supporters of teachers unions and so-forth. Along with questioning motives and reasons why people who support school choice That supporters of school choice assume that school choice is the answer to education and that they assume everything being equal with each racial group in the country. No one is making these assumptions.

Parents who have experienced school choice and let's take charter schools to use as an example schools that are owned by government but operated independently like school choice. Because they see their kids actually getting an education. With a real shot of making it in life unlike their parents who were probably stuck in school where they weren't able to do that, or didn't take advantage of the opportunities given to them.

You need to know about the opposition of school choice and why they oppose it. Who do teacher unions represent and why they are in business. If you guessed teachers, well good guess captain. Would you like another question? And what school choice represents is competition inside of the public school system when you are talking about public school choice including charter schools. Which means if parents don't believe their neighborhood school is effectively raising their kids, they can send their kids to a better school. Which means fewer resources and students going to that underperforming school.

Public school choice means competition inside of the public school system where teachers wouldn't be guaranteed of advancement and raises just for simply being a teacher. Where public schools wouldn't be guaranteed new students for simply being in existence. Which means teachers would actually have to produce. Meaning their students would actually have to learn what is being taught and be at grade level. Or they could lose students to other schools and teachers may be out of jobs. And that scares the hell out of teachers unions.
Source:Econ Corner

Professor Milton Freedom: Limits to Freedom

Source:The New Democrat

Ethical limits on freedom of personal action prohibit the hurting  of innocent people, intentionally or unintentionally.  I can't beat up an innocent person and vice-versa.  I can't get drunk and drive and hit someone on the road because I didn't see them or was too drunk to pay attention to what I was doing.  We also can't pass the costs of our own actions onto others.

That is liberalism, not libertarianism but real liberalism.  Our property rights give us the freedom to do as we wish with our own property, as long as we aren't hurting innocent people.  We are responsible for any actions we take involving our property.

The state is there to regulate how we, as individuals, interact with each other.  Joe can get drunk,  high on marijuana, eat too much, or not exercise.  He can't beat up on innocent people or hit someone with his car or steal their money, bomb their house or commit any other activity that hurts innocent people. Joe is also responsible for what happens to Joe, meaning what he did to himself. This is how freedom works.  We are responsible for our own lives and what we do to ourselves.  Our freedom does not include hurting innocent people.

Phil Donahue Show: Professor Milton Friedman (1979)

Source: Ed Choice- Economics Professor Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue in 1979.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Dr. Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, promoting “Free to Choose” on the show Donahue.”

From Ed Choice

I love this show and love this interview and if I wasn’t three years old when in 1979, I would’ve watched this show myself. Because here are two guys who agree on practically nothing, coming from both ends of the political spectrum. With Classical Liberal Milton Friedman on the Right and Social Democrat (let’s say) Phil Donahue on the Left. But knowledgable enough about the others side and these issues to have a good discussion or debate with each other. To do it intelligently and respectfully without yelling at each other.

You have the ultimate of individualists in Classical Liberal Milton Friedman. And about the ultimate as collectivists come in Social Democrat Phil Donahue. So you have a debate between someone who believes in a free society, not an Anarchist, but in the sense that everyone should have the right to live their own lives, as long as they aren’t infringing on others to live their own lives. Against a Collectivist who believes that we are all part of the same society and have a responsibility meaning government to look after the welfare of others. And even at times protect people from themselves.

I’m with Professor Friedman on most if not all the social issues. Legalizing narcotics across the board, would be where I would differ. We agree on marijuana, but I would decriminalize the other narcotics and treat users and addicts as patients and not addicts, at their expense.

And I’m with the Professor on most issues when it comes to economic freedom and policy. Except I believe you need government help and empower people who are down get themselves up and off public assistance all together. And to protect customers and innocent people in general from predators who would hurt them. And profit from their bad behavior.

But generally speaking, at least, I tend to come down a lot more on the side of Milton Friedman, then I could ever even dream of being on the same side of Phil Donahue.

Eric Holmberg: ‘Milton Friedman Tries To Help a Future Wall Street Occupier (1978)’

Source:Eric Holmberg- Professor Milton Friedman, being questioned by a young, idealistic, leftist (lets say) in 1978.

Source:FreeState Now

“Churchill once observed, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” Today we have a new breed of liberal, people who want the government and corporations to spend whatever money necessary to keep them safe, employed, housed. fed and healthy…and in possession of a smart phone. But if they knock up their girlfriend, they want to be able to dispose of the unwanted child as inexpensively (free would be good) as possible.

Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, takes a moment and tries to get one young “99 percenter” to think through his presuppositions.” 

From Eric Holmberg 

If you around in America in the 1970s and survived it and aren’t currently incarcerated and are living a healthy, productive, independent, life, I congratulate you.

In late 1970s Ford Motor Company in order to save a lot of money and produce a lot of cheep cars and then sell them, produced the Ford Pinto. Which by today’s standards, at least doesn’t even qualify as an economy car, it was so badly and cheaply made. This car was so bad and unsafe to drive, that the gas tank was in front of the license plat in the rear. Meaning if you hit a Pinto in the rear, the car could literally explode.

What this kid in the video was trying I guess to find out from Professor Friedman was does he believe that there should be some real regulations on the types of cars that are allowed to be built and sold in America, given the experiences with the Ford Pinto, Mercury Maverick, Chevrolet Chevette. With Professor Friedman essentially making the at what cost argument: How much are you willing to spend to make sure that every American car is as safe as possible?

Commonsense Capitalism: 'Why Milton Friedman is Not a Hollywood Liberal'

Source:Commonsense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman in 1978 or 79.

"Why Milton Friedman is Not a Hollywood Liberal"

Source:Commonsense Capitalism

The reason why Milton Friedman was not a "Hollywood Liberal" (a term I don't agree with) is because as Professor Friedman said in this video, he doesn't believe in a high level of concentrated power, whether it is government power and corporate. 

Professor Friedman believed in what he would call a free market (not that there's such a thing as a free market) and a free society, where as many people as possible are competing with each other and living freely and making their own decisions, with their own lives, to have as much individual freedom as possible. That's a paraphrase, but it's pretty close. 

As far as the term "Hollywood Liberal": some of the most classically liberal (meaning real liberal) and center-right (not left-wing) people in America, live or work in Hollywood and are also some of the wealthiest people in America, if not the world. Some of the most pro-individualist, pro-capitalist, pro-private enterprise, pro-individual wealth, people live in and around Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and Manhattan, New York. Even though all of these big cities get stereotyped as left-wing havens and homes to American leftists. 

In actuality, these so-called Hollywood Leftists, whether you're talking about Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Ben Affleck, or whoever else you want to mention, are actually some of the wealthiest and freest individuals in America, if not the world. But they're also entertainers who play leftists on TV and in film, and in public, but that not what they actually believe, because that's not how they live their own lives.

Professor Milton Friedman: The Power of Choice

Source:Idea Channel- Economics Professor Milton Friedman in 1979 or 80.

"An excerpt from the biography of Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman."

Source:Idea Channel

The power of choice is a huge power and the most important and powerful tool we have as people no matter where we live in the world. Whether we live in a liberal democracy like America or social democracies like in Canada, Europe, Australia, or the democracies in Asia, or whether we live in authoritarian states. 

The power of choice is the most important power we have as people and in a way the only power we have as individuals. Because without it, we don't have any other powers as people, because choice it powers everything. We do as people and it's always there for us as well, as long we have power over our minds and bodies we have choice. 

In a free society some people will always have more than others, but we always have choice as long as we control our minds and bodies. Power of choice is the power to make good decisions or the power to make bad decisions. And with every decision we make as people, there are consequences that come from the choices that we make good and bad.

There's no such thing as a socialist utopia or paradise. There may be some countries that are closer to this vision than others, but that's exactly what it is. A vision of what life would be like if everything is perfect. So it's not a question of whether have have a perfect society, or not but what's the best society that we can build for ourselves that's better than all of the alternatives. 

Myself as a Liberal Democrat (meaning someone who believes in liberal democracy) that society would be a society where the power of choice is running rampant, where individuals have the power to govern themselves, as long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Which is what liberal democracy is about. 

As a Liberal and as an individualist, I believe in personal freedom, responsibility, and education. The ability for people to get a good education and then use that power to make the best decisions for themselves and the people that are dependent on them. And then be held accountable for all of their decisions for good and bad. And these are the values that Professor Milton Friedman also believed in.

Liberty Pen-C-SPAN: Brian Lamb 1994- Milton Friedman, Personally Speaking in 1994

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, on CSPAN's Booknotes with Brian Lamb in 1994 

Source: Liberty Pen-C-SPAN: Brian Lamb- Milton Friedman Personally Speaking in 1994

One of the things I like and respect about Milton Friedman's history and politics, is that his history and life story has shaped his libertarian politics and how he looks at the world. That he came from practically nothing or very little. And worked his way up by earning a college scholarship from Rutgers University and working his way up in life that way. Which I believe is a big reason why's he's been so against welfare and the welfare state. At least to the extent that it's there to take care of people because with Dr. Friedman's life, he wasn't raised on public assistance. And didn't live his life off of public assistance, but he showed that people could make it in life on their own. Even if they come from very little and make something out of their lives, if they are just given the opportunity to do so. Which is a classical liberal idea, not Libertarian but classical liberal idea. An economic Liberal idea that people who even come from very little in life if they are just given the opportunity to do so.

What separates Liberals such as myself from Classical Libertarians, is that Liberals believe that government can play a role through scholarships and grants to empowering people in need. Especially kids who come from rough beginnings. Who work hard and are qualified to go to a good college and even adults who've made mistakes early on in life. But just need an opportunity and empowerment to be successful if life and then they'll be able to do that as well. The 1996 Welfare to Work law being a perfect example of that. Economic liberalism is not about telling people what to do and how to live their lives and telling people how much they can make and punishing economic success through high taxation.Which is essentially what democratic socialism or social democracy is.  Or is it about getting government completely out of the economy. Which is what Libertarians tend to believe. But economic liberalism is about seeing that everyone can do well in life. And empowering people at the bottom to be able to advance on their own through economic opportunity.

I agree with Milton Friedman that if we're going to have a public safety net and I believe in a public safety net, but Professor Friedman would probably say, "if we're going to have a public safety net, then it needs to be designed to empower people in need to be able to move up in life. And that is should encourage work and independence and be temporary for people who only need it. But everyone else who can should be able to take care of themselves and support themselves from their own hard-earned income." I'm not even paraphrasing Professor Friedman here, but that is what he essentially believed with his proposed Negative Income Tax and support for Welfare to Work in the 1990s. Liberals believe that government should be an insurance system and a referee for the economy. Not the director and have something top-down centralized big government welfare state. But to protect consumer and workers from predators. And help people who fall through the cracks of the private enterprise system and help them get back up.

YAF-TV: Milton Friedman- 'Talks About Enemies of Markets'

Source:YAF-TV- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about the so-called free market.

"Dr. Milton Friedman talks about the enemies of free markets during this address to Young America's Foundation's 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference."

Source: YAF-TV

The enemies of markets (if you want to put it that way) are people who don't believe in markets. People on the Far-Left who tend to have a social-democratic if not socialist background, who believe the central government should have a major if not the prominent role in society to see that everyone is taken care of.

But then there are people who are called crony capitalists. Who believe that government shouldn't interfere with how their business is run (meaning regulation and taxation) but that government which is funded by taxpayers, should give them extra money. So their business is as profitable as possible. And the advantage that crony capitalism has over people who are against crony capitalism is that it's non-ideological, as well as non-partisan.

You have proponents of crony capitalism on both the Left and the Right. You have opponents of crony capitalism (I'm one of them on the Left) who are on the Left and the right. Center-Left Liberals such as myself oppose crony capitalism. Center-Right Conservatives and mainstream Libertarians, oppose crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is another way of saying corporate welfare. Which has been around at least since the early 20th Century and it's not going away anytime soon. 

The Open Mind With Richard Heffner: Milton Friedman: 'Your Boss Doesn't Pay Your Social Security Tax (1975)'

Source:PBS- Professor Milton Friedman, talking to Richard Heffner, on The Open Mind in 1975.

"Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman explains how both halves of the Social Security tax are borne by the employee. From PBS's The Open Mind (December 7, 1975)"

From  Wide World of Wisdom

Milton Friedman is correct in this sense about Social Security, that employees pay the whole thing. Because employers calculate the costs of employees, to when they decide how much to charge their customers, they take it in account. They know they are going to have to pay for half of the payroll tax, as well as half of the Unemployment Insurance tax.

So what employers do is have their customers make up the difference for what they have to compensate their employees as far as Social Security and Unemployment. So in theory, when business is doing well and companies can afford it with their prices, they don't have to pay the payroll tax at all. At least not long-term, because they get back based on how much they sell and charge customers extra to cover their share of SS and UI to make up the difference. While employees get stuck paying for their share of SS and UI, as well as Medicare. But also have to pay for other employees as well, when they buy products.

It's one example of why the payroll and UI taxes are regressive. But the problem with Professor Friedman's argument is that you could say that about anything that business's pay for. Everything they spend money on as a cost of doing business gets passed down to their customers. Including their employees compensation and benefits. 

Basic Economics: Milton Friedman- 'Tyranny of The Status Quo'

Source:Basic Economics- David Brooks is now a conservative columnist for The New York Times.

"Milton Friedman - Tyranny of the Status Quo - Part 1 - Beneficiaries w/ David Brooks"

Source:Basic Economics  

"Analyzes the failure of the Reagan Administration's attempts to greatly reduce taxes, regulations, and government spending and suggests practical changes." 

Source:Amazon- Professor Milton Friedman's 1984 book.

From Amazon

From the early 1930s with FDR and the New Deal till the mid or late 1970s, when high taxes became unpopular, perhaps starting in California with the tax revolt that started there in 1977-78, sort of like the 20th Century version of the Tea Party movement, big government, democratic socialism  (as I call it) was considered popular in the United States. Not as popular as it's in Canada or Europe, but probably the most popular in American history. And high taxes were considered a necessary evil, or perhaps not even evil at all, to fund all of the Federal social insurances that became popular. 

Americans expected to have all of these social insurances to benefit them and even take care of them. America was probably the closest to becoming a social democracy that's common in Europe then we'll probably ever be. 

But what happened in the mid and late 1970s, was the economy tanked and Americans were unemployed as a result that didn't want to be unemployed and found themselves collecting the programs that they didn't mind paying into. And a different philosophy that had always been around gained prominence in America. That was about low taxes and more economic freedom for individuals. And people who were unemployed that were once middle class, found this message appealing.

In 1979-80 Ronald Reagan a Conservative Republican and who was actually the real thing, an actual Conservative Republican (unlike Rick Santorum) who ran for President and ran on telling Americans how bad the economy was and he had a message to turn the economy around. That was based on lower taxes, lower regulations and more economic freedom. That government's job wasn't to take care of people, but that the people should have the freedom to take care of themselves. 

President Reagan was successful in a couple of fronts. He did cut taxes and regulations and the economy did take off in the 1980s, but government didn't become a smaller factor in Americans lives in this period. But if anything a larger factor, with the increases of the deficit, debt, the expansion of the War on Drugs and so-forth. 

It wasn't that the Federal Government wasn't spending less money during the Reagan Administration, but that it was taxing less, which is a big difference. It's hard to change the status quo when the status quo is popular and the status quo has lobbyists and interest groups, that are in the business to protect the status quo. This is something that every reformer left or right that has become President of the United States has ran into. And why changing things in Washington is so difficult.

Professor Milton Friedman: 'On Tides of Political Thought in Modern History (1999)'

Source:Libertarianism.Org- Economics Professor Milton Friedman in 1999.

"In this 1999 video from an International Society for Individual Liberty conference in Costa Rica, economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman delivers a live lecture to the audience through a teleconferencing system. Friedman speaks about various "tides" of economic and political ideas throughout the modern era, beginning with the lassiez-faire influence of the Adam Smith tide in the 1700s, progressing through the Fabian tide of big government authoritarianism during the greater portion of the 20th century, and concluding with the contemporaneous Hayek tide and the resurgence of classical liberal ideas following the collapse of some of the world's largest and most restrictive authoritarian states.

Milton Friedman (1912-2006) was one of the most recognizable and influential proponents of liberty and markets in the 20th century, and leader of the Chicago School of economics. Read more about Milton Friedman's life and watch other videos featuring him at:Libertarianism.Org." 

Source:Libertarianism.Org

By 1999 big government socialism (or social democracy, if you prefer)  was already out of style in the United States. People were tired of high taxes, deficit spending and wanted more economic freedom to live their own lives. But this started in the mid and late 1970s and with Ronald Reagan in 1980, people were given more economic freedom with across the board tax cuts and regulations. 

But government didn't get smaller in 198. Under President Reagan, it just taxed a lot less, which is a big difference and which is why the debt and deficits went up the way they did in the 1980s. The cuts in regulations actually started in the late 1970s under President Carter when he deregulated the airlines and other industries and America started developing other energy industries, like wind and solar. 

Big government statism was already out of style. That is big government coming from the right, what you see from Christian-Populists in America as well.  It's just taken Democrats longer to beat big government Republicans, then it's taken Republicans to beat big government Democrats. But big government from the right and left has lost a lot of ground for the last thirty years.

Professor Milton Friedman- 'Myths That Conceal Reality (1978)'

Source:Basic Economics- Economics Professor Milton Friedman giving a lecture in 1978.

"Milton Friedman - Myths That Conceal Reality (Lecture) Lies of Socialism, Social Justice and Equity."

Source:Basic Economics

I'm going to give you what I think of Professor Friedman's so-called myths.

Robber Baron- Pre-Progressive Era a movement that Progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt and other Progressives build during the very early part of the 20th Century, we did have the closest thing to a Libertarian Society that we'll probably ever get too, at least economically. There's was plenty of big government to go around when it came to social issues and government's relation to non-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant men in America. But big business essentially had the free will to do practically anything that they wanted to, including buying politicians and doing it legally.

Great Depression- I mostly agree with Professor Friedman about the Great Depression. The FDR New Deal didn't get America out of the Great Depression. It did help and help create jobs and helped Americans deal with the pain of the. But it's World War II and post-World War II America that got American economy back to full-strength.

Safety Net- I'm in favor of a public safety net and having some type of public social insurance system for people who truly need it. But we don't need the Federal Government doing this. These programs should be run by the states and localities, including Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. And we need to empower private charities to be doing more to help Americans in real need. 

Free Lunch- Professor Friedman is damn right about now free lunch. Everything that we do and everything that we get in life comes with some cost. Generally financial, but living in poverty is the only way that people can even be eligible for public safety net programs or even private charity. 

Robinhood- the Robinhood theory of economics assumes that there's only so much money to go around in any economy. And that it's somehow unfair for people to be wealthy, while others have to live in poverty. Therefor you have to rob Joe and Mary, to take care of John and Susan, (or whoever the people involved are) instead of just expanding the economic pot with further economic and job growth, as well as better education and more economic development.

The Open Mind With Richard Heffner: Professor Milton Friedman- 'On The Maintenance of a Free Society (1975)'

Source:Libertarianism.Org- Professor Milton Friedman on The Open Mind With Richard Heffner, in 1975.

"Milton Friedman, the recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, was one of the most recognizable and influential proponents of liberty and markets in the 20th century.

This is a clip from Friedman's first guest appearance on The Open Mind, a public affairs interview show hosted by Richard Heffner. This tape aired on public broadcasting stations nationwide on December 7, 1975.

For more on Friedman's life and work, and to watch more videos of and about him, visit:Libertarianism.Org." 

From Libertarianism.Org 

"I want people to take thought about their condition and to recognize that the maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing and it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to do something about them you not only may make them worse, you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere." 

From the Self-Educated American

What a free society or what I prefer to call a liberal democracy is, it's a country where the people are free to live their own lives. Not free to hurt innocent people, but free to live their own lives. Which are  two different things that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) and Christian-Populists don't seem to understand. 

A liberal democracy is a society where we recognize that there are dangers in the country and there are consequences that come from making decisions in life. And that we accept that there isn't a perfect system, that there isn't a perfect society, but that there are liberal societies where people live in freedom. 

Authoritarian societies are where people are subjects of the state and less freer societies where people live in freedom, but not as much as in a liberal society. Where government does have a role in protecting people from themselves at least to some degree, so then it's just a matter of which of these societies that people decide to live in. How much freedom do they want, if any and what would they do with any freedom that they may have. Then we would be better off in deciding what type of country that we are and where we want to go in the future. That it's not about building a perfect society, but creating the best society that we can.

And again when I talk about free society, I'm talking about a liberal democracy where Americans would have the Freedom to live their own lives. To be self-sufficient and not have to depend on government to take care of them.

In a liberal democracy, the role of government is to protect individual freedom. And to protect the innocent from predators, but not try to protect people from themselves. That individuals are free to live their own lives, as long as we not hurting innocent people with what we are doing. 

In a liberal democracy we accept that there are dangers in life and people will do things that are not in their best interest, like drink, smoke, do drugs, sleep with people they don't know. (To use as examples) But trying to prevent these things from happening, doesn't mean they'll go away or locking people up for doing these things, won't make them go away. They'll just be done underground. That if government wants to protect the people, then don't try to punish them when they do something that might be in their best interest.

In a liberal democracy, make sure we have all the relevant and credible information that they we might need and then be able to make the best decisions for ourselves known what we need to know. And then have to deal with the consequences of our own decisions for better and for worst. 

To state the obvious, there really isn't a truly free society in any civilized country. Otherwise that would be anarchy where people could do whatever the hell that they want to, including hurting innocent people. And the only consequences that would come to them, would be how others retaliate against them when they hurt them. Which is what Anarcho-Libertarians seem to want. What we can have is a liberal democracy where people are free to live their own lives but not hurt innocent people. 

Liberal democracy isn't just about voting. But it's also about individual rights and that inside constitutional rights where we can't lose our freedom simply because one more person than not believes that freedom isn't worth having and that freedom gets voted away. And that is what a free society in a liberal democratic society is. 

Free To Choose Network: Professor Milton Friedman- 'Why Do We Let This Happen? (1978)'

Source:Free To Choose Network- I hope you get Professor Friedman's point. LOL

"In this archival video from FTCN, Milton Friedman explains why he believes people allow their liberties to be eroded. The question and the answer are as relevant today as ever. This video was taken at Cornell University in around 1978." 

From Free To Choose Network 

I believe Professor Friedman makes two very good points here about why we get the government that we do and then I believe the rest is debatable. 

Professor Friedman was talking about some conference he intended that President Gerald Ford put together in the mid 1970s about inflation. And I guess they went around the table and asked each person there how they would cut inflation. And apparently each person said that you cut inflation by cutting spending. But you don't cut the programs that they like: 

"Hey, it's not me causing these deficits and inflation. Look at everyone else at the table instead. There's nothing wasteful about corporate and agriculture welfare. And I need those tax deductions for all of my vacation homes. Otherwise I couldn't afford to go on vacation there." 

And these are just a few examples wasteful, big government spending. Americans taxpayers are financially responsible for the national defense of other developed countries that are financially and personally capable of defending themselves. 

You look at infrastructure where contracts are rewarded based on who knows who in Congress or at the Department of Transportation and as a result we get bridges to nowhere and roads that only 10 people use, while we have crumbling bridges and roads in high populated areas. 

And then the other good point that Professor Friedman made about we get the government that we get, because we live in a democratic system where you have a majority of voters who want the government that we get. So to quote the great political satirist George Carlin: "Maybe it's not the politicians who suck" maybe it's the voters who vote for the politicians who give us all the government that we get who suck. 

Sidewinder 77: Milton Friedman- 'On Self-Interest and Profit Motive'

Source:Sidewinder 77- Chicago University Professor Milton Friedman, giving a lecture in 1978.

"This clip is from the 15-part lecture series, "Milton Friedman Speaks" 

From Sidewinder 77

The reason for capitalism or in America the reason for American capitalism, is that in an economy like that, it's assumed that the people can make it on their own if given the opportunity. That there’s a limit to what government can do and should do. 

The whole point of constitutional law and limited government and federalism, that government doesn’t do everything right and when it tries to do too much, like taking so much out of the economy to take care of its people, doing things for the people that they can do for themselves. like run a business, make their own health care decisions, plan for their retirement, decide where to send their kids to school, etc, and you can go down the line, that it becomes expensive, intrusive, and inefficient.  

But if you empower the people to not just make their own decisions, but the right decisions, educated people tend to become free people, which frees up a lot of resources for government to do what we actually need it to do as a free society, like protect and defend. Not try to un our lives for us.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.