Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- Greed

Source: IZ Quotes- Professor Milton Friedman, on greed-

Source: FreeStatePlus WordPress 

Before I write a blog about greed and arguing what it’s good or not. We should first know what greed is. Which is  the "inordinate want to obtain wants for oneself". In other words the want to obtain things just for ourselves. For us to have for ourselves which covers everyone in every country in the world including the most Socialist countries in the world from. Social-Democracies like Sweden to the state-owned communist republics like North Korea all run on a certain level of greed. 

I write this blog for myself and for others to see and so I can obtain things for myself. Not do it just for the hell of it or just to give information and opinions to people who read it. The fact is we are all greedy and are all motivated by greed at least to a certain level. For us to function in life, we all want our own home, our own cars, our own clothes, own food. We all want to go on vacation for ourselves and whoever we may vacation with. Rather than stay home so we can go to work for the betterment of whatever company we happen to work for. 

We work to give ourselves the ability to obtain things for ourselves. Greed or be greedy is things we are able to do as we become more successful in life. So the question is not whether people are greedy or not. And even religious leaders and Saints run on some level of greed. Including people who serve in the military or armed forces, teachers, doctors. You name the profession and it has at least a certain level of greed in it. And this is important because we tend to use the word greed like it’s an insult. Or call someone greedy like we would call them a bastard or jerk or something. When the fact is we are all greedy. 

So the question is not whether we have greed or we are greedy. But what happens when greed goes uncheck and we have too much greed in society. Because that’s when greed becomes a problem. Somebody who runs a company whose company provides better products than their competition and is rewarded for that financially and everything else, that’s a good form of greed, beating the competition. Greed is a problem when companies literally try to destroy the competition so they no longer have competition. Like lobbying for laws that benefit them over their competitors. Or pay their employees slave-wages so the executives can profit more. It’s when greed goes uncheck that it becomes a problem.

Which is what I believe Milton Friedman was trying to explain in this video. That greed is used to put the other guy down, but we as individuals are never greedy. It's just those people who do better than everyone else that are greedy. When the fact we are all greedy as individuals. It’s just a matter of how greedy that we are. And when it goes uncheck it’s, then when greed is bad and not good. Which is why we have regulations over the economy including taxes. So we all pay for the services that we consume.
Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- Greed

The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- 'Why Capitalism is Best (1979)'

Source:Commonsense Capitalism- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

"Milton Friedman On Why Capitalism is Best"  

From Commonsense Capitalism

Phil Donahue essentially trying to make the case that private enterprise and capitalism is somehow greedy and all the angels and unselfish people work for government, with the role of regulating how the rest of us live. 

With Professor Friedman making the sharp and quick response to that by boomeranging Mr. Donahue's point against him and rhetorically asking him: "Do you think Russia and China doesn't act on greed and aren't greedy." As well as asking him if he's aware of a successful society that doesn't act on greed. 

Webster's definition of greed: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed" We all want more than we need in life (except for Angels and Saints) so we have security and not have to worry about how we're going to pay our bills and take care of our families. 

There can be too much of anything in life, as well as too little. But if you eliminate greed, you'll have a lot more poverty in America, as well as anywhere else, because you'll have fewer people wanting to be successful in life and getting the skills and knowledge to be successful, because they won't have that self-motivation to be secure and have more than they need to live well.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Invest Bliguru: Free to Choose- Milton Friedman: 'Cradle to Grave-Public Assistance (1980)'

Source:Invest Bliguru- Robert Lampman participating in this discussion.

"Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people's welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions. " 

From Invest Bliguru 

From Cradle to Grave, is referring to how people who were born onto public assistance, raised on public assistance, have kids before they are ready to raise them and live off of public assistance as adults as well, that we literally have had generations of families who’ve lived off of public assistance, because they have never gotten the skills that they need, to be able to leave public assistance. Meaning they would have the skills that they need to get a good job and not have to live off of public assistance, because they have the means to be able to take care of themselves and their kids.

A lot of this is a result of the safety net that was created in America, in the 1930s with the New Deal and the 1960s with the Great Society. Where you had all the social insurance programs that we're designed to help sustain people while they are in poverty, but not do anything to help these people to get themselves off of public assistance and out of poverty once and for all. This is what public assistance was in America, pre-1996. The TANF Law (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) better known as Welfare to Work, changed all that.

It’s not a question in my mind and I believe many other Americans minds, of whether we should help people, who for whatever reasons can’t fend for themselves. The question is how to we do that. Do we just give them a few hundred bucks each month and expect nothing from them other then using that money to pay their basic needs, but continue to allow them to make the same mistakes, that they’ve made and while they are on public assistance, like having kids when they aren’t ready to take care of them, having more kids, when they can’t take care of the ones they already have, using their public assistance checks to buy alcohol and other drugs, or do we instead help them help themselves, so they no longer have to live on public assistance.

Do we empower people to now have the skills to take care of themselves instead of what we’ve done in that past. The first question is what we were doing pre-1996. The 2nd question is what we’ve done ever since. This is what Classical Liberal Professor Milton Friedman was focusing on in his movie Free to Choose. And interviewed people who hate the current public assistance system and want to see it ended. People who were happy with the current system and people who were speaking in favor of the reforms that happened in 1996, that Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis ran on for President in 1988.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

CATO Institute: George Will- ‘Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner’

Source:CATO Institute- Washington Post Conservative columnist George Will, speaking at the Milton Friedman Prize Dinner, in 2010.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Pulitzer Prize winner George F. Will delivered the keynote address at the dinner for the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. Will was introduced by Cato Institute President and Founder Ed Crane. The dinner was held May 13, 2010.” 

From CATO Institute

George Will said in an interview with Charlie Rose in October, 2008 (a future blog post that is coming up) that, there’s a Libertarian Wing and a Social Conservative Wing in the GOP. And that the Libertarian Wing, is getting larger in the GOP thanks to Ron Paul, CATO Institute, and others ,. He’s mostly correct and I agree with most of that. I would just phrase that a little differently.

There’s a Conservative Wing and I mean Conservative across the board not statist in any sense and there’s a statist wing in the Republican Party. So-called Christian-Conservatives (Christian-fundamentalist-theocrats, in actuality)  who now make up the Christian-Right, Tea Party, and people who don’t identify themselves with either of those groups.

Thats the State of GOP today which is made up of people who believe in economic freedom, except for the right for workers to organize, religious freedom for Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Christians, and they want big government out of our wallets, so they can get in our bedrooms and living rooms to tell us how we can live our lives, who we can sleep with, who we can marry, what we can watch on TV, and what we can listen to, what bars and clubs we can go to, etc. To a certain extent even what we can do with our own money.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Christian-Fascist wing of the Republican Party is winning in the Republican Party. Which is bad for them and anyone who believes in liberal democracy and doesn’t want America to become a one-party state, which is most of us.

As we move along as a country, we are getting younger, more tolerant, more liberal, and libertarian. We are becoming a country that wants big government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Generation X and Y are perfect examples of that.

But as the changes are happening, we have Christian-Fascists who are still stuck in the John Wayne-Ozzie and Harriet’s-Beaver Cleaver’s 1950s America and haven’t figured out that color TV is common and that people like to have a good time and don’t want to be told how to live their lives. That not all Americans don’t fit in with the 1950s establishment, that we are all individuals and don’t fit into the Christian-Fascist box of what Americans are supposed to be. And that if you don’t fit in that box, which is only the size of a lunch box, that somehow you are Un-American, or Socialist.

George Will, is right about the Republican Party in the sense of the two wings that make up today’s GOP. What he would call a Libertarian Wing, that he fits in, that I would call Conservative, which is different. And a so-called Social Conservative Wing (even though they don’t believe in conserving anything) that I would call statist.

There are Christian-Fascist Republicans and are unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Statists are not only coming, but are winning in the Republican Party and are on course to put the Republican Party out of business.

Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman's Free to Choose- 'From Cradle to Grave'

Source: The Daily Hatch- Helen Bohen O'Bannon, on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979.

“Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions.

Traveling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed.

Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.”

From Invest Bliguru

When Classical Liberal professor Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose movie in 1980, he spent one of his chapters on the public assistance system. How we treat people who can't take care of themselves. Keep in mind, Professor Friedman is a Classical Liberal and went into this film with pre-conceive ideas about our public assistance system. But he not only interviewed Libertarians, but Progressives as well as professionals who work in social welfare.

And they talked about the people who collect public assistance and what their lives are like on public assistance. And what's expected from them as they are collecting public assistance. The history of our public assistance system, from when it was created in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. And where we were as far the effects that the War on Poverty that President Johnson created in the 1960s. And the status of where we were as a country as of 1980 when this film was made.

They were talking about what happens when we take people who don't have the skills to be able to take care of themselves. Lack the education to get a good enough job that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Especially low-income low-skilled people who have kids, but lack the ability to make enough money to be able to take care of themselves. As well as the state of our education system, not producing enough people in the country that have the skills to be able to move on to college and more skills and learn a trade. So they will be self-sufficient and not end up on public assistance in the future.

Especially people with kids that they have to obviously look after, but which makes it more difficult to them to go to school. And get the skills that they need, so they can get themselves a good job and to be able to take care of themselves. And their families and not have to return back to public assistance in the future. Professor Friedman's, main point when it comes to public assistance, that I agree with, is that is you give people money, who can't take care of themselves and you expect nothing from the in the future other than spending what little money you give them to be able to take care of themselves, that they'll remain poor.

If you give people more money, to pay for their food and rent, then you are essentially rewarding them for not getting the skills that they need to be successful in life. But if you reward them to go out and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves and even demand that they do, then they'll do that in return.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger.

Common Sense Capitalism: 'Free to Choose- What's Wrong With Our Schools?'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose talking about public education in America.

“Free to Choose Part 6: What’s Wrong With Our Schools Featuring Milton Friedman” 

From Common Sense Capitalism 

This film or at least Professor Milton Friedman’s narration of the film is about the lack of school choice in public schools in America, as well as promoting private school choice and charter schools.

I agree with Professor Friedman that one of the main problems with public education in America has to do with the lack of school choice and competition, especially for low-income students and parents. And because public education is mostly funded by local and state property taxes, kids in low-income communities are forced to go to underfunded and failing schools.

And as a result these students don’t get the education that they need to be successful in life be ready for college or a vocational school, even if they make it out of high school. Which a lot of low-income kids in America never even make it out of high school and just repeat the cycle of poverty that their parents also repeated.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Commonsense Capitalism: ‘Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?’

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- conservative columnist Thomas Sowell appearing on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979-80.

“Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman” 

From Common Sense Capitalism 

“Just” refers to an action justified under the circumstances. “Fair” refers to an action that treats people as they deserve to be treated. Many times, actions that are just are not fair. In hard cases, an action may be justified because there aren’t superior options, even if it’s results are unfair to at least some people.

If a madman holding a single hostage is going to blow up a school full of children, shooting him through the hostage may be just, but it isn’t fair to the hostage.

In addition, outcomes that aren’t the results of human action are neither just nor unjust. For example, a hurricane is neither just nor unjust. Yet a hurricane can be very unfair. One lazy person wins the lottery, another more deserving person does not. There’s nothing unjust about that, but it’s not fair.” 

From English Stack Exchange 

I believe the better word here instead of fair is just. There’s no such thing as a perfect world or utopia. You could create best system for life anywhere in the world and you’ll still have people who are better off than others. You still have people who have to deal with cancer, while others live completely healthy, with more money than they know what to do with.

We’ll never live in a perfect world as long as the world is dominated and controlled by humans, for the simple fact that humans have always been and will always be imperfect as a people. So it’s not a fair society that should be the goal here, but creating a just society that works for as many people as possible, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. And empowering as many people as possible to be able to have a real opportunity to live as freely as possible, short of hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing and holding everyone accountable for their own decisions that they make.

No one in world is better than anyone else based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. We’re all born equal based on what our race, ethnicity, or gender is in life. It’s what we do with the opportunities that we have in life that determines how much better off we are in life and how we use our intelligence, abilities, and talents, that determines how we do in life.

So some people are better off than others not because of their physical identity, but because of what they do with the opportunities that they were given in life and how they apply their talents and abilities. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Professor Milton Friedman: Free To Choose (1980) ‘How To Stay Free’

Source:Invest Bliguru- a House Agriculture Committee hearing in 1980.

“The Great Depression of the 1930s changed the public philosophy regarding the appropriate role of government in American life. Before the Depression, government was not assumed to have special responsibilities for individual or business welfare. The severity of the economic tragedy of the 1930s resulted in a dramatic change in public attitudes.

Many believed the Depression represented a “failure of capitalism.” Because of this alleged failure, government has ever since been expanding its power and the scope of its control. Government growth has resulted in waste, inefficiency, and a loss of personal freedom. Intended to serve the interests of the people, many governmental programs have been revealed to serve primarily the interests of the bureaucrats.

Many government programs serve at cross purposes. For example, different agencies attempt, on the one hand, to discourage use of tobacco as potentially dangerous to good health and, on the other hand, to encourage production of tobacco through subsidies to tobacco farmers. The list of government inconsistencies and inefficiencies goes on and on. Dr. Friedman, however, says that there is reason for optimism. Today, he notes, the public is better informed about these matters and is increasingly willing to take a stand against further unnecessary expansion of government services. He suggests the most fruitful approach is to remove discretionary budget power from the government. Friedman favors passage of a Constitutional amendment limiting the government’s budget and forcing government to work within that budget.

But this is only the first step. As Dr. Friedman points out, “What we need is widespread public recognition that the central government should be limited to its basic functions: defending the nation against foreign enemies, preserving order at home, and mediating our disputes. We must come to recognize that voluntary cooperation through the market and in other ways is a far better way to solve our problems than turning them over to the government.”

From Invest Bliguru 

I believe this is from the Free To Choose episode talking about the dangers of a big, centralized, national government, and what happens when you centralize a lot of national government power into on capital city.

Source:Professor Milton Friedman- during his 1979-80 PBS documentary Free To Choose.

If you look at the lobbying industry in America and why it’s so large and why they’ve become so powerful and have dominated Washington politics, preventing both good and bad things from happening and becoming law, it’s because as the famous bank robber Billy The Kid once said to why he robs banks, he said,: “Because that’s where the money is.” 

Why do lobbyists lobby Washington, because that’s where the power is. We now have a Federal budget of 3.7T$ and now have a public service of eight-million workers including Congress and their staffs. So of course they are going to lobby the Federal Government so much to represent their interests, because that’s where the power is.

If you look at the Washington skyline, especially downtown Washington, you’ll see a big beautiful city with lots of big beautiful buildings that take up a lot of space. Most of those buildings paid for by Federal tax revenue and most of those buildings are Federal property to house the thousands of Federal agency’s we have and thousands of Federal workers who work there. Do we need Federal campaign and lobbying reform, of course we do. But campaign finance and lobbying reform in America is not a silver bullet to fix the corruption in our Federal Government.

But as long as the Federal Government is as big and powerful as it is, lobbying will always be an issue in the Federal Government. Members of Congress will always be looking for the easiest way to get reelected and the fastest way to move up in the House and Senate and be planning their post Congressional careers. Well, the few members who actually leave Congress will be doing that. The others will concentrate on the easiest way to get reelected, move up in Leadership, perhaps land a sweet cabinet position or look to run for President themselves.  

If you want less lobbying and corruption in Washington, get the government power out of Washington and send it back to the states, localities, and the people themselves. As well as full-disclosure on all Federal lobbying and political activities in America. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: The Welfare State (1980)'

Source:Commonsense Capitalism- Milton Friedman documentary about the welfare state.

"Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman"

From Commonsense Capitalism

This video lays out why I’m against the welfare state, especially run by government, because of the built-in incentives that incentivizes people to go on Welfare Insurance, and not continue to work. Because they can collect more money collecting Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. 

No Welfare or Unemployment check should be worth more than money that person would make if they were working. Because it encourages people not to work and collect public assistance instead. Paid into by people who work for a living and making people on public assistance dependent on public assistance for their daily survival.   

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Jeremy Arendt: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: 'The Tyranny of Control (1980)'

Source:Jeremy Arendt- Donald Rumseld: former U.S. Representative (Republican, Illinois) and Secretary of Defense (President Gearld R. Ford) 

"Government planning and detailed control of economic activity lessens productive innovation, and consumer choice. Good, better, best, are replaced by "approved" or "authorized." Friedman shows how "established" industries or methods, seek government protection or subsidization in their attempts to stop or limit product improvements which they don't control. Friedman visits India, Japan and U.S."

From Jeremy Arendt

If you look at the Federal Government in America and its size post-World War II, we've generally spent around 20% of our GDP on the public sector. Defense, law enforcement, foreign affairs, social welfare, etc. 

And then you add state and local governments, government total in America at all three levels have spent around 30-35 of our GDP on the public sector. 

And then you go to the Federal, or national government's in Europe, except for the United Kingdom, which basically has basically unitarian government without much if any provincial or local governments, they generally spend around 50-60% of their GDP on their public sectors. And thats just as their national level. 

So the the role of government has gotten bigger in America than it was before the Great Depression, but if you're someone who believes in individual freedom and freedom of choice, which I do, I still rather live in America, than anywhere else even in the developed world.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Wide World of Wisdom: The Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman: 'Freedom vs. Fairness (1980)'

Source:Wide World of Wisdom- Professor Milton Friedman, on the Phil Donahue Show in 1980.

"Milton Friedman discusses freedom vs. fairness. From: Donahue - 1980"

From Wide World of Wisdom 

Milton Friedman has a point when he talks about freedom vs. fairness, when he says he’s not for fairness, but for freedom. Give people the freedom to live their own lives and resources to make that happen for them. 

I believe what Professor Friedman is talking about here, is justice, which is not the same thing. In a true just or free society, the people have the right and ability to take out of society what they put into it. That not everyone is entitled to a successful, rich life, just the people who are successful, who've done well for themselves and society. 

Unlike the socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) definition of economic fairness or justice, that everyone in society is entitled to live well, simply for being alive. Regardless of what they produce for themselves or society, if anything.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Liberty Pen: Professor- Milton Friedman- 'The Welfare Establishment (1978'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, giving a lecture in Chicago about the American economy and government, in 1978.

"Professor Friedman looks at the dynamics of the welfare state. Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

The term “Welfare Establishment”, I find interesting, because it suggests that there’s a group of people, who get together to design social insurance programs for people, who for whatever reasons can’t support themselves. Or these programs go to help these people support themselves. That these people get together to plan how they are going to take care of low-income low-skilled people. With other people’s money. Which is my main problem with the welfare state. 

I don’t support the idea of a welfare state, because a welfare state is basically for anyone who pays into them and it makes people dependent on them, because they expect to get them. And less independent than they can be, because they know they have these Welfare programs coming their way to take care of them. And people on Welfare, feel that they don’t need to work as hard. Or be as productive as they can be, because again they have these Welfare programs coming their way to take care of them. 

I believe in a safety net which is different. A safety net, is for people who needs it, who don’t have a large enough pension fund to take care of them, can’t afford enough health insurance once they retire, can’t afford enough health insurance while they are working. Lose their job and can’t find new work right away. Can’t afford a home on their own, can’t afford private education, etc. 

Basically a safety net, is for the people who lack the skills to take care of themselves for whatever reasons, but then its up to the safety net especially since its funded by taxpayers, to help these people who are physically and mentally capable, to get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves.

If we had a public assistance system that was about self-empowerment instead of dependence, guess what, fewer people would need public assistance, because more people would have the skills to take care of themselves. Which would make these social insurance programs more cost-effective and efficient, because fewer people would need them, because they would be supporting themselves and be self-sufficient. 

Its basic economics and more people would instead be paying into public assistance, instead of collecting from it. Which is why people who can fund their own retirements, unemployment, health Insurance etc, should be doing exactly that. Instead of collecting from Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicare.

Again, welfare state is for everyone, whether you need it or not and now we are wondering why we are going to have trouble funding it. Safety net, for the people who need it that empowers those people to be able to take care of themselves and be self-sufficient so we have fewer people dependent on public assistance. Two different concepts when it comes to social insurance. 

Social insurance, should be exactly that: a social insurance system, that people can collect from when they need it. That buys them time and allows for them to pay their short-term bills. While they are putting themselves back on their feet, or on their feet for the first time in their lives, because they grew up on Welfare and perhaps never saw their parents work at all. And made similar mistakes as their parents. Like dropping out of high school and having kids before they were ready to take care of them. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Milton Friedman: 'Path To Socialism'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, on The Open Mind with Richard Heffner in 1975. 

"Milton Friedman explains the dynamics that naturally lead toward collectivism---and away from the far preferable state of individual liberty... Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

I guess, in Milton Friedman's world, there would be no public safety net. That if people fall through the cracks of capitalism, that thats too bad and they are stuck in that condition. Unless they can get themselves out of that condition on their own, or help from private citizens. To help them out, that we would go back to the days pre-New Deal, or even the Federal Reserve Bank. And that perhaps we wouldn't even regulate the economy at all, except for anti-monopoly laws. Dr. Friedman, was anti-monopoly. Both public and private and believed that individuals and corporations, shouldn't be able to pollute the environment as well.  That they should even be taxed when they do. Dr. Friedman, is sort of an inspiration of the Tea Party movement on economic policy.

Even though the Tea Party at least generally speaking, isn't as liberal on social issues. There are also some Tea Party members, perhaps a majority even that are in favor of Social Security, or Medicare. Perhaps because they collect from both of those programs, or their parents collect from both of those programs. And they don't want to see the benefits for themselves, or their parents to be eliminated and for them to have to fend for themselves. But would like to see some of these programs reformed in a way that allows for more freedom of choice. But there are also some Tea Party members, people who support Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who's a libertarian ideologically, who would like to see our safety net completely ended or phased out.

Representative Paul, has proposed phasing out our social insurance programs instead of eliminating them right way. So the people who currently collect from them, would still get their benefits. Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson, has proposed transferring these programs over to the States. So Dr. Friedman, has been an inspiration to Classical Conservatives and Libertarians and Liberals such as myself. But hasn't been the Gold Standard for the Tea Party movement, but someone who they've used to generate their own ideas. They agree that what the Federal Government is doing in certain areas is wrong. But they have similar, but different views in how to change them. So Milton Friedman, has been an inspiration to the Tea Party movement, but not its driving force. And more of an inspiration for Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

Libertarians, are clearly against the New Deal and Great Society and other progressive social insurance programs. And is a big inspiration for their movement and the formation of the Libertarian Party. But the Tea Party, is a bit different, because even though there are some Libertarians in this movement, they became a political movement based on a fiscal conservative message and they aren't for eliminating Social Security and Medicare. But would like to see the Federal Government cut back and eliminate spending in a lot of areas. So Dr. Friedman, has inspired parts of their movement, but doesn't represent their playbook. Similar, but different policy's. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Phil Donahue Show: Professor Milton Friedman- Free To Choose (1979)

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

"Friedman, shows why he is unsurpassed in modern times in defending liberty. He cheerfully decapitates the ideas of a government-controlled economy, over a wide range of examples. His layman's explanation as to how government intervention and the Federal Reserve control of the money supply helped cause the Great Depression is simply outstanding."

From Brittle

I think it's great that a Classical Liberal like Milton Friedman can sit down to an interview with someone who I would describe as a Democratic Socialist like Phil Donahue. Someone who I again I have a lot of respect for, but who I rarely agree with. 

I love Milton Friedman, but I don’t agree with him on everything either. But I think it's great that these two brilliant men can sit down and have an intelligent conversation without trying to kill each other. Being respectful with each other without agreeing on anything. Something that Bill Buckley was able to do with Liberals and Socialists, without agreeing on anything with them as well either.

By the way, Milt Friedman didn’t consider himself a Libertarian but a Classical Liberal. As someone who’s a Classical Liberal in myself, but just considers myself to be a Liberal, I disagree with Mr Friedman. 

I also view him as a Classical Liberal, even through he believes government should be completely out of the economy and is for legalizing all narcotics. I disagree with both of those positions. I support legalizing with regulation and taxation of marijuana. Because it represents the same dangers, or less than alcohol and tobacco, both legal drugs. But I don’t support legalizing heroin, cocaine and meth. Which are narcotics that can kill people instantly. I don’t believe non-heroin, cocaine and meth users, should be forced to subsidize the health costs of these drug users.

I believe that government has a limited role in the economy, a very limited role. To prevent and stop people from hurting other people in the economy for example and providing a safety net for people who fall through the cracks. By giving them a hand up, not a hand out to move to self-sufficiency. 

Friedman, essentially believed government had has no role in the economy. He would be for eliminating Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare. No regulations for seat belts and safe cars and mileage standards and a lot more. He and I simply disagree here, which is one reason why he’s viewed as a Libertarian and I’m a Liberal. I believe government should protect people from hurting other people, but not themselves, different positions.

But here’s where Milt Friedman and I agree and if the Republican Party had more people like him today, they would truly be an anti-big government party: maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Very simple, but an important concept. Socialists, aren’t fans of maximize freedom generally. Because if you give people a lot of freedom, they might take advantage of it and be less dependent on government and make a lot more money than others.

Socialists, tend not to be fans of responsibility, thinking that taxpayers should be forced to bail people out when they make bad choices in life. 

Authoritarians, don’t like the concept of maximize freedom either, whatever the party they belong to. They believe that government should be able to regulate how people live their own lives. 

But if adults want to own a gun, smoke a joint, look at porn, pay for sex, sell themselves for sex, drink, smoke, whatever the case is, let them do that, because it's their own life. But don’t expect government to bail you out when you make bad choices and don’t force other people to do something they don’t want to and don’t hurt them. All actions have consequences good and bad. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Professor Milton Friedman: 'Liberty and Equality? (1978)'

Source:Brittle 13- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about liberty and equality, in 1978.

"Milton Friedman 1978.  From a lecture given at Stanford University. From Milton Friedman Speaks: Lecture 04, "The Role of Government in a Free Society:Free To Choose." 

From Brittle 13

As Classical Liberal economist Milton Friedman said, a society that aims for equality over liberty, will have neither. The reason being that if you keep taking from the wealthy to give to the poor, you take incentive that people need to make money. Because government will just jack it away from them. 

If society aims for liberty so people can live their own lives and essentially govern themselves and be as successful as their skills and production will allow, people who are better educated, more inventive, more creative, more strategic, more productive, will be more successful in life than people who aren’t. As they should be, because they put in the work to make that happen. Thats called capitalist economics, liberal capitalism, or liberal economics, even, where people can make as much money and be as successful as they can essentially can be. To have a strong economy, people have to have the incentive to be successful, or they won’t be.

But what we can have is an economy where we have equality of liberty where everyone has a shot to be as successful in life by getting a good education. And then putting those skills to work the best that they can. No economic system is perfect. Everyone comes with plus’ and minus’. The trick is to have an economic system that works the best. Where the plus’ outweighs the minus’s so much, that system is worth having. 

A progressive tax system is part of that, but not to the point that you tax wealth so much, that you take incentive away to create wealth in the first place. But a tax and educational system that encourages people to make money and for wealth to be created, instead of punishing those activities. And not having more incentive for people to be dependent on government for their financial survival.

There’s so such thing as true equality in any economic system. Where everyone is equal at least in a good way. In any economic system, where’s there’s a substantial amount of economic freedom, so people can make a good living, some people are going to make more money than others. Because we aren’t all equal economically, some people just bring more skills to the table than others. 

In a classical socialist economy where the state owns the economy, everyone might be equal economically, but they are all poor, unless they have a good government job. Take Cuba for example, but even they have moved to open up parts of their economy to privatization. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Hefner- Milton Friedman: 'Other People's Money (1975)'

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman.

"Professor Friedman examines the dynamics of "doing good" with other people's money:Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

If you make money on your own, you have a job you get a pay check, or if you work for yourself, you support yourself with your own business, chances are if you're responsible, you're going to spend your own money in a responsible manner. Because if you don't, you're going to pay a price for that. (No pun intended) But for your own irresponsible spending. And have less money than you otherwise would've had on things you need to spend money on to survive, had you spent your money responsibly. 

So knowing that you're most likely to spend your money in a responsible way. When you're spending others people money, you should spend it in the responsible way that you would spend your own money. Not believing that you can take more chances with other people's money. Especially if you're spending someone's money and they give you more money and keep giving you money. 

You're not going to be as responsible generally speaking, because mistakes you make with other peoples money, unless consequences come with that spending, won't effect you the same way. As the persons whose credit card, or checkbook, or even cash that you're spending. So you're going to be more likely to make mistakes spending other people's money than your own. Because it doesn't come with the same consequences. 

The Federal Government is a perfect example of this and why it wastes so much money. 100B$ a year alone in some programs and departments alone. (According to GAO) Because the Federal Government doesn't make a dime on its own, all of its revenue comes from tax collection. Plus since it controls the U.S. Currency, it can print money like drunk sailors spend it. Giving it even more incentive to waste money and spend it irresponsibly. 

I bet you anything that if the Federal Government was a business (and I'm not suggesting it should be) that they would be a lot more efficient with the taxes it collects. I'm not making a case for not having a Federal Government, or making it weak. But what I am suggesting that it have solid rules on what it spends the money on that it collects. And that there's strong oversight from Congress and the GAO (the Government Accountability Office) on its spending and operations to cut back on the waste in it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

PBS: The Open Mind with Richard Hefner- Professor Milton Friedman: On The Minimum Wage (1975)

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

"It is immoral to say that people with low skills are not allowed to work. Milton Friedman discusses the effects of minimum wage, dispelling the myth that it is a Good Thing."

From The Open Mind With Richard Heffner

Those of you who've read my past posts on this blog may be thinking that I'm a libertarian because I'm in favor of legalizing  marijuana, gambling and prostitution.  I'm also for guaranteeing all rights under the U.S. Constitutional to homosexuals as strongly as for straight people and I'm pro choice on reproductive rights.  I don't consider myself a classical libertarian  though I have libertarian leanings. I consider myself a classical liberal in the mode of Jack Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Clinton or perhaps even Thomas Jefferson, the father of the Democratic Party and, perhaps, liberalism itself.

I do believe in the maximization of freedom and responsibility for the Individual.  If you're a real liberal and not a social democrat, you're truly in favor of having government off our backs out of our wallets and bedrooms.  You believe that government should serve a supportive and empowering role, not an authoritarian role.  The minimum wage, or as I would prefer to call it, the living wage, is a pretty good example of that. 

In the 1930's, when the FDR Administration, with the support of Congress, established the minimum wage as part of the New Deal, it was done to create an income floor that American workers could rely upon to support themselves and their families. Most Americans (with the possible exception of the Koch brothers and other Republican oligarchs) don't want slave labor here.  70 years after it was created the original concept of the minimum wage has outlived its usefulness and needs to be replaced.  It hasn't kept up with Inflation because it has to rely on a fickle and indifferent Congress that is captive to the corporate employers of the minimum wage workers.  That Congress never incorporated Indexing for inflation in the statute. 

I would replace the Federal minimum wage with a Federal living wage indexed for Inflation.  I would propose giving employers an additional tax deduction based on the fraction of their payroll paid to minimum wage workers so that they don't see a spike in their payroll due to this change. The current Federal minimum wage is a measly $7.25 per hour.  This is  a little over $15,000 per year.  This is well below the poverty level.  The living wage should be at least $10 per hour.

This living wage  would giving minimum wage workers in America a substantial raise that would directly go back into the economy because the recipients would spend virtually all of it.  These workers would still be low-income but their income  would finally be at the Federal poverty level instead of under it.  

Low-income workers contribute a lot to our society and we couldn't survive without them.  They sustain everything from agriculture, food service, groceries, health care, and aviation service Industries etc.  They should be adequately rewarded for the contributions that they make to our society. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- 'Bad Laws (1978)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about bad laws, in 1978.

"Professor Friedman discusses how bad laws effect both behavior and morality:Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

My definition of what Classical Liberal  Economist Milton Friedman called bad laws are laws designed to protect people from themselves rather than from the abuses of others.   

For example, a law making it illegal to attempt suicide and fail would be a bad law. Other examples of bad laws would be those requiring adults to wear seat belts or bike helmets. Adults who drive or ride in cars or ride bikes are more than capable of making these fundamental decisions for themselves. We don't need Big Brother to make these decisions for us.  After all if someone crashes in a car or on a bike, they are only hurting themselves.   

I think that seat belt and bike helmet laws make sense for minors because they're not legally responsible. Adults should have the right to make such decisions for themselves. Bad laws are the perfect example of what big government is. Government designed to take care of the people for themselves, instead of the people having the freedom to make their own decisions. 

Laws should be written to protect people from the abuses of others not from themselves.  It make sense that murder, rape, battery, terrorism, financial fraud, etc., are illegal because these laws protect innocent people from the abuses of others. 

But anti-gaming, marijuana, prostitution, homosexuality, etc., laws don't make sense because they are designed to protect adults from hurting themselves. We have ourselves, family, friends and colleagues to protect us with their informed advice and we don't need Big Brother doing that for us. 

But with limited government you only have a government that is limited to doing what we the people can't do for ourselves, or do as well. That has the authority under the U.S. Constitution and has been approved by Congress and the President. Who are supposed to represent and be accountable to the people that they represent. 

Instead of having a big government with some welfare state and board of experts there to decide what is best for everyone in the country. Including people they've never even met.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.