"The Open Mind" talk show with Milton Friedman (1975) 

"If the government were efficient, we'd all be slaves now." Now that's a quote to hang on your wall.

Inspirational, spell binding interview. I couldn't peel my eyes away during the entire thing. Friedman had a unique, genius ability to explain his positions.

It baffles me that people have to be persuaded to be free.....

He is the most briliant economist that I've ever heard. Shocking is that he seems to be right.

Back then there were good conversations on TV that lasted more than three minutes.

Milton Friedman should be viewed by everyone

Yes, he most certainly is upper echelon. However, there is a long history of bright minds being ignored or barely listened to, with clear warnings perfectly explained, barely heeded by the very people who would be hurt the most from the inaction. And then when they do get hammered, they act shocked, like they were blindsided. It is fascinating to watch.

The gentleman interviewing him also has remarkably good questions that make the conversation smooth.

omg that is soooo true! i wish we had that more now...

Someone PLEASE tell me the name of the flute etude at the start of this video! ive forgot it and i want to listen to it again!

Its been almost 40 years and we are still dealing with the same problems. The solutions are so simple, but we are going the wrong direction.

Welfare doesn't work because of the system we're applying it to, the monetary system. You can't mix apples and oranges

Yes, I remember WPIX having "Open Mind" back in the 70s.

I love the sideburns they had back in the 70's haha.

He said the real difference who these people claim they are at that time! and people still don't understand the difference between political theories

Rhabavvi, you couldn't be farther from the truth. Ignoring for a moment the enormous funded (and unfunded!) liabilities SS created, of which we have zero hope of ever legitimately repaying/funding, there are vast economic disturbances that the New Dealers created (as the late Dr. Friedman called them). Some of which are the following: 1. The disincentive for some of the aged to work because they may lose their benefits if their income increases (decrease in productivity) 2. The general increased costs placed upon American consumers due to the de facto tax on all business and its employees. 3. The government had to try to pass it off as an insurance program when it most assuredly was not. This is typical government Newspeak ala Orwell's 1984. (It is a tax and only a tax) 4. There is no "fund". Such a thing never existed but maybe only in its earliest days of conception. The fact is, the taxation revenue is immediately spent on whatever the government sees fit to use it for at the time. The way the system is set up now is completely unsustainable/ insolvent. 5. In trying to pass SS off as an insurance program, the government engaged in criminal acts blatantly violating of Section 1001, Title 18, of the U.S. criminal code. They dubiously and deceitfully misled the American public in order to gain political favor. 6. To circle back to my original concern of unfunded liabilities, I consider this the most egregious of them all: the pressure for government to live up to these socialist promises and programs is immense and their solution has been runaway government spending. This government spending is fueled in small part by what congress calls taxes, however most of it comes from the granddaddy of dishonest tax -- inflation. The pressure for politicians to continually increase the money supply in order to reduce the burden of the immediate debt (made much worse by the funded and unfunded SS liabilities) has brought the entire Republic into great danger. Keep in mind this is not a complete list. It must be considered an abject failure despite your questionable statistics. And indeed can be placed on the extensive list Dr. Friedman alluded to, under "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I like this "government waste is good" philosophy

No money, no politics, just the people and resources. In essence A Resource-Based Economy

Interesting point. Any ideas for a solution? Im genuinely curious.

What happens to the people that choose not to give up their land for a rbe?

the flute playing is amazing

You can mix apples and oranges if you exchange them for money first ;)

Rather unfortunate that there are no captions and the sound quality is rather... bad.

anybody else irritated by the intro music

Where are the great thinkers of today? Why don't we have our leaders speaking clearly about the real choices we face? Political ranker and mud slinging are poor substitutes for debate and discussion of ideas.

Well that's just it, when we realize that a good (or land in this case) is only as good as its utility or use we then see that external restriction AKA ownership is extremely wasteful and a hindrance on ourselves and others. Many people forget that it isn't the good or land they want, it is the purpose of that good or land but let's say that person only uses that good or land for only 48 hours a week on average its much more efficient for goods and land to be made available when people need them

1) Which is exactly why I brought up tribal civilizations. I should have really said that because tribal civilizations are splintered, there is less collectivism for a given population of people in a geographic location. You can make the argument that their does not need to be a large number of people for the group to officially be a civilization, but given that historically large numbers of people have built the greatest civilizations, I'll make the argument.

But we wouldn't need the government to distribute fish if we had them counted, managed and distributed by a resource management machine designed to do nothing more then make sure we remain sustainable and efficient at all times

I tend to think of it like this: The United States is a raft heading for a waterfall Liberals and Environmentalists are rowing towards the waterfall. The Conservatives and Republicans are also rowing towards the waterfall, it's just that their oars have holes in them, and are perhaps rowing a little slower.

2) What I'm arguing is that there has to be a moderate, but really significant amount of cooperation for a civilization to properly function. We all have to agree upon rules that we must follow, paying taxes, forming a govt, etc. Do you prefer to live in total anarchy for the sake of freedom? I know that's the extreme but it seems to be what Friedman is pushing.

Why doesn't he mention his Negative Income Tax idea?

Here's a brilliant graphic representation of what Prof Friedman is talking about in the first half of the video. /watch?v=Ct1Moeaa-W8

He just makes too much sense, I cant believe it.

why can the president sit down and answer questions like this? no bull, just the people stressing government responsibility. anyway we could get that?

Solution, first we need to reset back down to the life ground and the life ground isn't any ism its life value analysis. Second we need to consider what technology, what science and what environmental resources we have to improve or lives and our planet. And third we need to use these resources and knowledge to create the most advanced and sustainable system designed from the ground up to provide for and improve the lives of ever human

3:12

I think your confusing terms here. The Collectivism that Friedman speaks of is one of an economic nature. "From each to his own ability, to each to his own need". Your mixing a political agreement with an economic one. Furthermore, I would like to see evidence of a non-collectivist tribal civilization. Friedman's argument is not that collectivism doesn't do anything. His argument is that it does lots at the expense of the common mans wallet and freedom.

shrink the government

Friedman is okay, and his logic is, unfortunately, flawed. His ideas seem good but what he fails to mention is how collectivism actually works to build civilization. I would argue that tribal cultures are the least collectivist of any and many tribes might and do occupy similar locations, but collectivism allows for groups to band together and build stable civilizations. There is, of course, an undulation of power within those civilizations. Freedom is a new thing in America.

Of course Freedman is right! Jesus. Just take every question down to the simplistic formula. If you get a dollar and give it to your caretaker you have done your duty. Your caretaker now has a dollar and so now it will be spent to care for you and your brothers. Lets say there are three of you. It turns out that one brother made a dollar also so the three of you get .666 of a dollar. Wow check out that number... Yep its less than a dollar but keeps a brother alive. Question is - why dont he earn a dollar so everyone has a dollar? Is this not a legitimate question? Wont it become an important question?

"We all have to agree upon rules that we must follow, paying taxes, forming a govt, etc" That's the problem right there: We don't all agree on these things. We never have. The current establishment has something like 30-40% approval with 'the people'. Look at voter turnout. Look at how much the average American participates in his own government, in his own politics. Most of us were born without ever having a role in the creation of these rules and A LOT of people are hurt by many of them.

I like Friedman but I disagree somewhat on the minimum wage comments. I think in a world that is unequal it's a luxury we enjoy in the west but it acts as a kind of Keynesian stimulus to an economy to put money in the hands of people who will spend it freely. Sometimes economists lose sight of the fact that technological advances are mostly the reason for the wealth of the world today compared with 100 years ago. Wealth is all about productivity and work done plain and simple and technology has made this much stronger. But I do love what he says about keeping government out of the economy directly and by keeping taxation reasonably low. Government does a terrible job in industry or any part of the economy and should only intervene indirectly through private enterprise at all times except for the military and police and other select services.