“There was a time when we honored those who created the prosperity and the freedom that we enjoy. Today we honor the complainers and sue the creators. Perhaps that is inevitable in an era when we no longer count our blessings, but instead count all our unfulfilled wishes.” Thomas Sowell
The panel missed Milton's entire point on inherited talent. His point is that we all start with different advantages and for the government to try and equalize things financially ignores the simple fact that we all posses different advantages that allow us to succeed if we choose to.
It’s the language they choose to use. And it’s the language barrier we keep ourselves in that make us blind to those different advantages to allow us to succeed.
The reason to give extra lessons to the most talented musicians is because we ALL benefit from what the most talented people produce. Everyone focuses on the benefit that the producer gets instead of the benefit that the consumers get.
Im listening to these economist discuss the Milton Friedman’s assessment of a free society and i am blown away by the consequence equality of outcomes rather then equal treatment under the law. As our society evolves, we hear talks of restricting speech, we are encountering hire health cost with limited services and treatment, socialized programs like the welfare state increasing poverties in highly left leaning states, students are being left behind in terms of education, and much more. Our Nations narrative has lost sight of their freedoms and regard other nations more free then the USA. I can only attest this to increased regulation by our government in which whom is still growing year by year.
Ahhh I love the old gent at 16:00 "They didnt got into professional basketball because of affirmative action, they got into it because they can do a 360 slam dunk in your face and you can't do a thing about it."
Williams made a fantastic example regarding prohibitively expensive Taxicab licenses in NYC as an impetus to opportunity, but he didn't finish the argument - and lost the point to Bouman, who blamed capitalists and entrepreneurs (i.e., the market) for the situation. Friedman would have pointed out that only Government power and collusion allows the limiting of licenses and creates virtual monopolies that restrict others from entering this market. That government is the CAUSE of disenfranchisement, and not the "market". Friedman always illustrated this artificial scarcity in licensing by citing pilots' and physicians' unions as examples. Fantastic program, but obviously too short to be an insightful analysis of Friedman's philosophy.
lol yeah, I was practically yelling that counter-point at the screen when Bouman put the finger on the "capitalists". Bouman does not understand what the meaning of a free market is: when a player in the market uses the government to get an unfair advantage, the market is not to blame, but the government for interfering with it.
When I was growing up I often heard the phrase, "it's a free country". I never hear it anymore because it isn't. When the government takes half of everything you earn every year, you are, at best, half free. If the government's share of GDP is one third, then the country on the whole is only two thirds free. Obviously, government is needed for some things. Our constitution does a pretty good job of defining what the government's role should be. For a long time, the government followed those rules to a great extent and took about 3% of GDP to do it. If the government were to go back to doing only what is required and stop overstepping their authority, the size and cost of government could be cut 90%, but I would be happy with 60%.
Yglesias was completely out of place in this debate - he was/is only a mouth piece that spoke to hear himself. It baffles my mind to see how such a simple concept can become complicated when people aren't sincere about their argument. The entire Friedman argument was simple - it is not right to take someone else's money just for the sake of those who need it most. We are all endowed with the opportunity to compete and not all will win - we are all from different backgrounds and different abilities. Those with more abilities and the right drive will excel more than those with equal abilities and less drive. The same can be said about those without abilities and without drive...it is almost sure that they will not accomplish much. But we have seen people that lacked abilities; but had plenty of determination that accomplished great deeds. It is not fair to reward others with the fruit of my effort just because they didn't get as much as I or anyone else got out of their effort.
The equality Friedman promoted was the freedom to compete in the area the individual had their interest and their own faculties supported their efforts. I may not be able to compete with an Olympic sprinter but I have a head for math that the sprinter may not. The term "equal opportunity" falls short of the idea of what is intended, "Equal Opportunity to Compete in that field I choose". When the government gets involved in more than a simple framework within which the competition takes place it usually ends up hindering one or providing special privilege to another.
We do not tax people per equal protection. We have variable rates, preferred/disparaged aspects (higher taxes vs. deductions and exemptions), and uneven collection. If we did this, then we'd have a fair tax (proportionate) despite not being a truly fair head tax. Then if government limited its spending to what it can collect in taxes, you'd have a fair government. Printing money and debt are just a taxes on the future.
The first answer "I don't think equality of outcomes had any serious force in this country". Yeah, clearly we never had statutory tax rates of over 90%. This is going to be a long video.
26:36 "I will pay my share of the Constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government, but I will not have my share go to bailouts (welfare etc)" God forbid we actually only do what the Constitution says.
Land worth nothing if there’s no production. The fact that the government giving out lands isn’t a welfare system because people still need to cultivate and produce on these lands to have anything substantial.
The 2 guys on the right side I bet have not watched or read milton’s work. While I guess that at least the other 2 have had some research into the topics.
33:27 WOW! Is Mr Bouman basically explaining that he agrees that, in theory, a small government is more beneficial but that right now the government needs more money in order to take action at an international level? Or is he just throwing some "actual policy debate" at everyone's face?
Does the pedantic political blogger say anything of substance, besides recycling economic theory 101 platitudes? He took multiple digs at Walter Williams, despite being less educated and established.
For me, the problem is not so much that the government taxes to provide more equality, but that in order to access this equality it's necessary to adhere to a strict way of living and thinking. If I want to access this money I have to dance to the piper's tune. In other words, those resources are not part of the commons, and equality of opportunity can only come from a rich and diverse commons. An example might be old style village life where people mostly knew each other. The village fool was allowed to do what he wanted (live outside the money system, for instance) and was also provided for, informally, in terms of food and shelter. By his very thoughts and actions the fool extended the commons and thus made the lives of the other villagers better.
I can understand that, since he speaks in common sense terminology: which was a trait Friedman was very good at in explaining his views to the common man. But I would argue that the star of the panel is Shikha Dalmia. She clearly understands what Friedman arguments are and what they are not, something that the opposing debaters (especially John Bouman) and sometimes even the host do not.
I am an instrumental teacher from the uk. I taught someone whose parents were poor. Money was given to the parent to provide 2 years of free tuition. This has resulted in the child making new friends by joining a band and now has got into school of music. This would not have happened if government /tax payers money had not been forthcoming
+louiethegreater1 I'm confused. When Pinochet took over, inflation in Chile was over 600 percent. Weren't the poor and middle class already paying? Buses and public transport couldn't operate due to lack of available parts. Were the rich taking buses, or were the poor the ones that were paying? If you want to criticize Friedman, do you feel that Allende's regime was doing a better job of making sure the poor and middle class didn't suffer?
pebutts That is an easy question, When Allende was in control the resources belonged to the Chilean people, When Pinochet gained control they were sold off to the global oligarchs. Now I ask you where does that leave the indigenous people of Chile. I don't believe that 600%. If you are saying that a nation state must murder its citizens, kill all opposition in order to enact a failed economic theory, you should be looking for another economic hero instead of Friedman.
The 600% figure is according to several sources. Whatever figure you believe, it cannot be disputed that inflation was a tremendous problem and in the triple digits. "The resources belonged to the Chilean people" is meaningless. When millions of people supposedly own something, the individual person has no control whatsoever, so there is no real ownership. In communist societies, including Chile, control of resources ends up in the hands of the ruling elite. The real owner of something is whoever decides what happens to it. In effect you're simply arguing over which elite should control the resources. Nobody said anything about the methods the Chilean government employed in order to enact its economic policies. I'm not sure how that entered into the discussion, unless it's intended as some sort of smear. Your original statement postulated that the same thing happened in the United States. Did I miss the murder of citizens in order to enact free market reforms here? If you want to discuss the economics, then fine, but please refrain from the intellectual dishonesty.
How do you back up your claims? The fact that you do not understand how the world progresses forward doesn't mean that Friedman was wrong. Enough with the stereotypical nonsense!!!
C_R_O_M__________ So your understanding of how the world goes forward is based on WHAT? The fact that the wealth of Chile has flowed to the top 10% of the country is proof enough of the damage the Chicago Boys did to the average Chilean. The same applies in the US, we are the end result of Friedman's economic theories. Nothing nonsensical about facts.
The question, if Walter Williams truly believes that slavery is not part of the free market, and is a violation of essential principals of free markets, does that not beg the question there would need to be a correction to 450 years of free labor and exploitation?
