Does it say as much about Farage ? Farage takes a pension from that place he despises which amounts to more than twice the average wage of the British worker working 50 hours a week. No ! - he doesn`t hate the European Union as much as he tells you he does. But don`t worry about Farage. The opportunites open to his children have not been altered one iota on the grounds of us leaving the European Union - not least on the grounds that he and his children are still in possession of a European Union Passport. Wouldn`t it have been nice if St. Nigel at least handed over his EU Passport upon leaving the European Union -whilst the rest of us are forced to ?
For all their (the left) talk about big business, it never seizes to amaze me that their "solution" is always bigger govt, i.e. the biggest monopoly of them all.
Considering how Kinnock ended up a wealthy man "working" for the EU, a huge bureaucracy which taxes the workers and spends vast sums of that tax over-paying bureaucrats like Kinnock and giving them gold-plated pensions, you really do have to laugh. listening to him in this debate, Kinnock proves Friedmann right.
One of my favourite facts about the EU and it's from quite a while ago so probably much worse now, is that their very own auditors stated that 50 billion was unaccounted for!!! I can only imagine how bad that number truly is and where that money ended up!
Was that Kinnock's fault or intention? The EU is to blame. If your employer offered you a 1000% pay rise you would refuse? The systems are being debated here not morality.
@@flachi32 the laws in the EU are not made by the assembly (in the stupidly big round chamber full of the MEPs you vote for and see on telly who only have the “power” of ratification) but by a small group of faceless, unknown, NON-ELECTED, elites who pay themselves a fortune (called “the European Commissioners”)… This is flagrant totalitarianism - a tyrannical power has taken Europe. Many of these freaks are from German neo-nazi (leftist) roots - and the great majority are from arch-communist backgrounds. Tony Blair and his odious wife are said to be part of this secret elite. (Mandlesssssson, another….) Neil bloody Kinnock is known to be another….!!! Wake UP!
True, however the Austrian School economists like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises were even more prescient than Friedman. Rothbard predicted how the monetary system would turn out back in the 1963.
@@Si_Mondo absolutely! Friedman was fundamentally wrong in his monetarist views. Trusting central planners with the monetary system (even though he thought of the FED as independent) is a fatal flaw. Austrian economic thought brought us BTC and there's a good chance we are winning this battle for good. Look at the inflation (which is by design, imo - to burn sovereign debt).
@@Si_Mondo Friedman came to U of Chicago in the early 50s when Von Hayek and the Austrian school were already dominating the department there. So Friedman didnt invent the approach but he added major research to it. And is its greatest expositor.
Liberals are consumers, usually benefactors of public sector jobs. Conservatives are usually producers. Heard a great fact that the most common factor to convert someone from liberal to Conservative is a lottery win.
Single income household here raising a family of 4, government taxed my bonus at 30%. The government is the gangster. Nobody else is stealing my hard earned cash. Government has now given my tax dollars to lenders in repayment of student loans that i didn’t benefit from. Friedman is exactly spot on.
Friedman says it all the time. A and B get together and decide to spend C's money on D. Then D tells you all the wonderful things that you're impeding by not agreeing to shoveling your money into these voids. How many STEM, law, business degrees became something profitable compared to the theater degree college experience waste those tax dollars are going to.
It was in a book of Peter Drucker (father of modern management) that I read the following (which stuck with me ever since). Paraphrasing: (all) governments are (essentially) criminal organizations whose sole purpose is to deceive and exploit the populace; the only laws they obey are natural laws"! That's powerful and, above all, the bitter truth.
@@ryanarborist This is why quality culture is moribund, because the sciences and the arts do not sit in mutual reciprocation any more. They've been separated ideologically to serve, respectively, both private corporatism and statist ideological corporatism. These are the two pincers that are pummelling real cultural development.
The welfare state has only ever expanded. There are multiple generations of families who have never worked a real job. Currently we are seeing a crisis in skilled labour due to the talented people dropping out of society as there is no benefit. Fantastic to review these arguments decades later, where we have our answers.
@@umbraemilitosCapitalism doesn't have a goal. It's a monetary system open to be utilised or exploited whichever word triggers you least. It created the middle class. It created social mobility for billions of people and even with all the perversion and corruption of it, there are still people that are able to drag themselves out of the dirt, which 300 years ago was nigh on impossible for the vast majority of people.
Great exchange, Friedman on fire and the great educator as always. And while Kinnock spoke well, his actions speak louder as he went on to become very wealthy as a politician and so proving Friedman’s concerns over A and B taxing C to give to D while much of that money staying with A and B. As they say there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government programme. But is there anything worse than decrying the position of the poor and lining your pockets in their name? That is the greatest crime of the socialist
At about 8:15 Prof. Friedman talks about the economic freedom of the 19th century, and how during this time, there was more charitable giving being done than ever before or since. Friedman makes two fact-based assertions: 1) 3/4 of the beds in British hospitals, in 1980 when this debate was held, were found in private hospitals that existed because of philanthropic sponsorship by wealthy individuals making private donations, and 2) this was a period when working people were becoming better off, their standard of living was rising, and the gap in income between rich and poor was shrinking. Kinnock tries to refute this starting at about the 11:00 mark. Listen carefully to his answer; it's gobbledygook. He starts saying "see what I was taught was that philanthropists, taught by people who were the victims of philanthropists, who employed them for six days of the week, and then victimized them for the other." He rambles on for a couple of minutes more, but he doesn't really _say_ anything. It's word salad. Prof. Friedman makes simple, straightforward, fact-based assertions that anyone could independently verify with a little basic research if they care to investigate for themselves. Kinnock responds with totally unsupported assertions about what he was taught, and how the poor really had it so bad in the 19th century, and collective financing has made all that better, and there is not _one_ single, solitary, independently verifiable factual assertion offered in support of _anything_ he says. This shouldn't surprise anyone. One of the participants was a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and a scholar accustomed to doing research, citing supporting evidence, making logically sound arguments, etc., and the other was a slick politician, whose main talent was for demagoguing issues in order to gain political advantage.
Good comment. Kinnock is not an unintelligent man but he is a misled one or perhaps just a disingenuous one blinded by his leftist ideaology. He knows how to waffle too.
the more i listen to left wingers, the more they are absolutely sinister in their deceit - they just want to be the all powerful and tell everyone what to do...
@@nedgeson326 For most of human history, about 99% of the people in the world lived on than $2 a day genius. There was _always_ a wealthy, powerful elite lording it over the rest, not just during the 19th century. In fact it was during the 19th century that began to change. I guess because it didn't happen overnight you'd prefer it didn't happen at all.
@@flachi32Fiedman was 100% right on his predictions and he actually hit bull's eye with "imagine a world where civil servants work for civil servants and not the public". That's exactly what's happening all across the indebted West as we speak. Argentina voted for Milei, after decades of Kinnock's policies. Greece is another living paradigm as well. Democratic Socialism gets progressively more socialist than democratic (and that's my observation living in Greece).
@@C_R_O_M________ that's the interesting thing about the neoliberal free market ideology - it's a purity cult. If things go 'wrong' it's always someone else's fault for not being neoliberal enough. But if things go right then it was the right thing all along, regardless. The comment about civil servants is a great example - as though 'big government' is creating problems... In the UK the government is smaller than it's ever been and let me tell you we are circling the drain as a result.
Sinn Fein here in Ireland are just as bad. Claim to be socialists yet most of the senior members are extremely well off. They were also notoriously anti EU, pro life and against gay marriage. Changed their principles for political gain.
As much as I dislike him, you have to admit he didn’t cower reframing it as a right, he called it an obligation. I don’t how many times I’ve had to call out someone invoking a right when it’s really a duty they are invoking. You would never see that in a modern political debate.
I thought that the discussion was civilised and dignified, up to the time when Kinnock referred to Freeman as part of a team of gangsters. This old chestnut of wickedly insulting your opponent in a debate is something the US Democrats would take on 40 years later. The moment Kinnck started with the ad hominem attacks, he completely lost my respect.
No: Milton's argument is stronger than Kinnock's, but that has nothing to do with his IQ or Kinnock's IQ. Noam Chomsky and a whole host of other high-IQ people would be on Kinnock's side. In my opinion, they would be on the wrong side, but that is certainly NOT because they are of inferior intelligence. People choose their political and philosophical standpoints for emotional reasons, for reasons of personal character. It has nothing to do with being "smarter."
@@DieFlabbergast It is inferior intelligence. OP said nothing about IQ. Intelligence is the ability to draw conclusions given the information that we have. Some people draw all the wrong conclusions and they really believe they are right.
@@flachi32Only capitalism can accommodate pockets of socialism. Socialism cannot exist with pockets of capitalism exactly because socialism is rooted upon envy.
Interesting to note that Neil Kinnock is a multi-millionaire... It is nevertheless good & refreshing to hear civilised intelligent argument rather than woke soundbites...
Militon wanted to eliminates distress and private charities can help, then says gov aid to these people should continue. We have a mix now that’s working well for humanity. A market-based system and a social safety net.
If Kinnock was setting up to defend government control and intervention, he undermined it at the end: He was agreeing on Friedman's earlier point that a powerful man in government, Rockefeller, would've done better as a private individual than running New York.
Neil Kinnock was always like a six foot man in a 10 foot pool...out of his depth...in everything. I have never heard him say anything intelligent. The electorate saw straight through him, and that must have hurt him.
@@Samhain__UK theories? they were proven objectively true by empirical evidence lol, something the left knows nothing about. worry about the dumpster fire that is the UK instead.
You cant shake the feeling that Friedman is applying the natural selection vs artificial selection scheme in the economical realm. I don't know what to think about that, as long as i don't hear him say "The stronger will survive and that's for the best"
@@queenieman6883 Kinnock's a demagogue and that was Milton Friedman not Friedrich Hayek. Kinnock-type policies brought Argentina and Greece to their knees for decades. I know because I live in Greece and I'm economically literate. I don't think you are. Democratic Socialism becomes progressively more socialist and less democratic. As soon as you surrender pieces of your life to central planners they rule you more and more until the economy shrinks so much and corruption reaches such a high level that society resets through some Milei-type reaction. I wish Milei succeeds in cleaning the "manure in Augean's stables" that decades of socialist policies created (and bankrupted the whole of society).
Wow from point of view of philanthropy Kinnock had to go right to the start of real wealth creation, and ignore that government philanthropy was much worse then compared to private, and ignore how good private philanthropy became after that, while government for a few centuries treated the poor like slaves and lesser humans. It wasnt until society at large was so disgusted with how government treated them that things actually changed in governments approach
Thanks for posting the clip! The other big guns on the panel are Nigel Lawson, and Maurice Peston (father of the journalist Robert Peston). The full debate is here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n_9sHgA8OdA.html
There used to be multiple oil companies. Now there are three. Walmart workers are on food stamps. Why are we subsidizing Walmart? In 2008, we bailed out banks because they greedied themselves into a corner. Before that, we bailed out car companies. One percent of the population has ninety percent of the wealth. Wages haven’t come close to keeping up with inflation. If Economics is a science, why is there so many discrepancies in predicting the economic future? Basically, I give up.
The government is involved in all of that. The fact that people don’t realise the government created the conditions for the 2008 GFC crash is beyond me. Legislation against bank discrimination in lending in the name of “equity” was the cause of the mess.
18:20 I don't know if anyone caught it later on or not, but Kinnock completely destroys his entire rationale when he complains that those who have money and power join government in order to cement that power. In Friedman's world, and in the world created by the US Constitution, the government would have no power to do what these people wanted.
Milton was so far above most everyone who tried to argue against him. The Einstein of economics. Kinnock makes no argument supported by any logic or facts.
The Einstein of economics was Einstein. He was a communist, wrote for the Monthly Review, a Marxist publication, and hated the wasteful nature of capitalism’s profit motive.
never seen this before... gosh Neil Kinnocks constant smirk and rolling his eyes... right there you can see why all communist states end in disaster...
So what? Don't socialists defend legal egalitarianism? They standardize liberal egalitarianism even more for the population, they equalize individuals in classes and defend a planned economy for the entire society.
the only point kinnock got him on was the last point. When people accumulate all this wealth they then go on to either politically prevent others from competing with them, rather by ammending laws or backdoor diplomacy or whatever, or they forcibly suppress and buy out their competition. I've never heard Freidman come up with a way in which this can be prevented under his system, which is laissez-faire free market capitalism. Even Teddy Roosevelt was unsuccessful in his attempt to disrupt these practices, and none of the anti monopoly laws we put in place after the fact have done anything. The fact is, everyone has their price, and the rich who have accumulated capital will always use their position to pervert the system and extort the poor. Now certainly he's right that less socialism is better, since the results of a government and its laws constraining a private entity is much more incentivized and honorable or less efficient at corruption than a government and its laws trying to monitor and constrain its own corruption, but im not sure the corporate capture of government we see today or throughout history is the result of socialism or constriction of the free market. Certainly in degree the disparity and quality of living is muh worse due to that and the government control over money supply and interest rates etc, but to what degree? You can't get rid of the end result under any government, because even if you create the perfect government, it will slowly be eroded and perverted by those with accumulated capital or positions of both until it is no better than what we see today
Turns out Kinnock policies were implemented and failed miserably. The Kinnock crowd, recognizing these failures, have moved away from cries of equal opportunity by force to equal outcomes by force.
“Can’t abuse freedom.” False. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan explains the “state of nature”, the “war of all against all”. This state of affairs has been promoted by all right wing/royalist/libertarian proponents, particularly Friedman, his predecessors and followers up to the present. The freedom of the top predators is assured - they are free to destroy the lower classes at their leisure.
politics dictate that someone in the position of power will give benefit to their follower if they can thats inevitable thats why govt should not be allowed to do that
Neil has some good criticisms. Regardless if Milton and people here will seriously accept them or not. But yes, most of his solutions are also terrible.
Milty is a lot of fun, but you must analyze individual policies more to know the right answer. On whether inheritance tax disincentivizes productivity, for instance: For those who enjoy profit for profit's sake, making money provides a dopamine hit every time they get paid. They still get this self-reward regardless of how much goes to their kids. For those who feel deeply about their children or their lifestyle, passing on $200K plus 66% of the rest of your wealth will surely continue your children's lifestyle in 90%+ of cases. Milty, though, apparently finds all inheritance tax unacceptable.
I’m a free-marketeer and always included Friedman’s arguments in my assignments at Uni but in the UK the blatant corruption seems to have proved Kinnock right. So many millionaires are rich here because they had a friend in cabinet award them a lucrative contract with no expectation of even providing anything valuable. Sure you must be suffering the same kind of corruption in the US.
Lol, what are you talking about? Friedman said exactly that in the debate. The corporatism of the modern State happened precisely because of the increase of the State, regulations limit competition and only benefit the powerful who, because they have more resources, will be less affected by new government demands.
It’s like the brightest kid from Oxford debating the dumbest kid in the 2nd year at the worst secondary school in Cardiff. If anyone still wants to promote socialism then please listen to this.
Hayek is sat there claiming the 'small state' Victorian age was good BC of what philanthropy the industry barons did, while not considering the immense growth of wellbeing during the organised labour age of 1890s - 1950s compared to the Victorian age.
On fixing income inequality, how do you go about doing it as Friedman said, and to quote Sowell, at what cost? Also, Kinnocks at 6:05 says, "We should start off in the same level." This sounds exactly like every DEI/Marxist ideologue in 2024. (proof that these types have never changed) It's that life isn't fair, so we the government must step in and not lift people up to the higher levels, but bring everyone else down to the same level. Government is always there to help where the universe is "unfair" is there motto. People can't start out equally without top down force. AKA tyranny. Thomas Sowell even said, if you can't force everyone to be on the same level in your own household, how the hell are you going to accomplish it for a country of millions? These people are either stupid, or liars.
An efficient society will be one that nurtures the special talents of people from any class or background. Most of us are mediocre to some extent, but society really benefits from those gifted people who have special talents. Rich people in positions they have no right to occupy should be weeded out and replaced by more talented people of any class. A true meritocracy is by far the most logical and efficient use of a nation's human resources. A Clydesdale horse, for example, would be useless in a steeplechase, but is unequalled pulling a carriage. Find the right fit for people rather than this dishonest one size fits all ethos.
In what world can you say that the rich don't "deserve" their income, and that a "true meritocracy" would necessarily involve artificially propping up people who have not earned larger incomes? I suppose you could argue that the wealthy kids of wealthy parents don't "deserve" their money, but then most of the overall worth of those people doesn't come from income. It is literally impossible for someone incompetent to luck into becoming a millionaire or billionaire, with the exception of elected government officials who engage in illicit behavior. If I start a company and in twenty years am running a billion dollar company, clearly I've done something incredibly well. If an artist is struggling financially, there is simply no way that you could say he "merits" a substantially larger income, solely due to his field of work.
Also your solution would be to put the economy into the hands of a few hundred people who necessarily cannot have expertise in every single field, rather than in the hands of the 330 million Americans who are determining which companies succeed and which fail every single day.
@@wyssmaster Hollywood is full of what the call 'Nepo kids'. Self explanatory, really. They are occupying roles purely because of their connections. In the City of London, if you come through Eton and have the right accent, surname and family connections you are right in to a prestige job. Regardless of your talent. This is why so many people are willing to pay expensive fees, they know that they are purchasing advantage. An efficient society nurtures its best talent, whatever the background, and gives them a route to prove themselves. If they fail, they will be found out and replaced. This is so self evidently the logical approach I don't see how you could sensibly argue against it. Meritocracy is akin to survival of the fittest as a principle, Darwin would surely approve.
@@wyssmaster You only have to look at Russian oligarchs who became hugely rich as a result of inside connections to disprove your point about the acquisition of great wealth. Trump inherited his wealth. Nancy Pelosi and her husband became incredibly rich as a result of inside knowledge, the Bidens used political access to generate vast wealth. People in the defence industry use bribery and blackmail to oil the wheels of their wealth Nicki Haley was almost broke till she was able to get on the boards of of major defence contractors and use her connections. Your homespun theory that millionaires are all rich as a result of dogged hard work and a spark of genius is mostly a fantasy
