Milton Friedman

[speakeasy]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

 

[vinman]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

 

[cardguy]

The above reminds me of my favourite Milton Friedman clip. Forgot to mention it before...

 

[Ensam]

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

I think that's a bit of a cop out. Charity has historically been handled by religious organizations. People tithed to the church and then the church determined how best to help the needy. People weren't stingy because of peer pressure (or fear of going to hell) not because of the goodness of their hearts. I don't really see the difference between a church administering aid and the government doing it.

 

[cardguy]

Saw this the other day. Really impressed me.

Milton Friedman describes how just about all government programmes are for the benefit of the middle classes - at the expense of the very rich and the very poor.

I have never heard anyone use logic in this way before.



Everytime I watch a Milton Friedman clip he shows me a whole new perspective on political and economic issues that I have never come across before.

 

[speakeasy]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

That's what libertarians say. They may give somewhat more, but there no way it would completely replace what the government gives or even come close to being what's adequate for social welfare. The percentage of income spent on aiding the needy would shrink. The point of government making it mandatory through tax is so that there's a genuine safety net that's guaranteed to be there should you ever slip through the cracks, and you won't have to depend upon the whim of others. Others who may just as soon upgrade to a larger LCD TV than throw you a bone.

 

[Tex Pro]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

That's what libertarians say. They may give somewhat more, but there no way it would completely replace what the government gives or even come close to being what's adequate for social welfare. The percentage of income spent on aiding the needy would shrink. The point of government making it mandatory through tax is so that there's a genuine safety net that's guaranteed to be there should you ever slip through the cracks, and you won't have to depend upon the whim of others. Others who may just as soon upgrade to a larger LCD TV than throw you a bone.

Why should the government take care of people? That is what friends and family are for. Charity should be used only to alleviate hard luck situations, not solve them.

The government either taxes (takes other people's money) or prints (inflates away the dollar, aka a hidden tax) in order to provide for social welfare programs. The government creates nothing.

 

[speakeasy]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

That's what libertarians say. They may give somewhat more, but there no way it would completely replace what the government gives or even come close to being what's adequate for social welfare. The percentage of income spent on aiding the needy would shrink. The point of government making it mandatory through tax is so that there's a genuine safety net that's guaranteed to be there should you ever slip through the cracks, and you won't have to depend upon the whim of others. Others who may just as soon upgrade to a larger LCD TV than throw you a bone.

Why should the government take care of people? That is what friends and family are for. Charity should be used only to alleviate hard luck situations, not solve them.

The government either taxes (takes other people's money) or prints (inflates away the dollar, aka a hidden tax) in order to provide for social welfare programs. The government creates nothing.

I look at it like insurance. We've all paid into the system. We may hit hard times and need to help at some point in our lives. As secure as you may think you are, you are only one major health problem from bankruptcy. Yes, even if you have insurance. Don't even get me started on that one.

It's not about the government being a nanny, it's about having a safety net. A baseline of poverty that we're willing to tolerate so that we don't have sick, barefoot, starving kids standing in Times Square begging for money like you'd have in the third world.

 

[Tex Pro]

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

That's what libertarians say. They may give somewhat more, but there no way it would completely replace what the government gives or even come close to being what's adequate for social welfare. The percentage of income spent on aiding the needy would shrink. The point of government making it mandatory through tax is so that there's a genuine safety net that's guaranteed to be there should you ever slip through the cracks, and you won't have to depend upon the whim of others. Others who may just as soon upgrade to a larger LCD TV than throw you a bone.

Why should the government take care of people? That is what friends and family are for. Charity should be used only to alleviate hard luck situations, not solve them.

The government either taxes (takes other people's money) or prints (inflates away the dollar, aka a hidden tax) in order to provide for social welfare programs. The government creates nothing.

I look at it like insurance. We've all paid into the system. We may hit hard times and need to help at some point in our lives. As secure as you may think you are, you are only one major health problem from bankruptcy. Yes, even if you have insurance. Don't even get me started on that one.

It's not about the government being a nanny, it's about having a safety net. A baseline of poverty that we're willing to tolerate so that we don't have sick, barefoot, starving kids standing in Times Square begging for money like you'd have in the third world.

You can buy insurance for if you get sick or disabled on the private market.

IMHO the government should simply be a referee: provide a police force, a court system, and a military...and possibly fund large public works (roads, bridges, etc.). Anything else and things start to get sketchy.

Furthermore, the idea that if we lowered taxes, the USA would turn into a third world country is laughable. Immigrants come to this country for economic freedom, not so that they can get taxed/regulated to death. Continuing to raise taxes/regulations will kill the "golden goose."

Communism has been tried. The USSR should have been the richest country in the world by now if communism was the answer. It is not even around anymore. That should be a sign.

 

[coolstorybro]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

That's what libertarians say. They may give somewhat more, but there no way it would completely replace what the government gives or even come close to being what's adequate for social welfare. The percentage of income spent on aiding the needy would shrink. The point of government making it mandatory through tax is so that there's a genuine safety net that's guaranteed to be there should you ever slip through the cracks, and you won't have to depend upon the whim of others. Others who may just as soon upgrade to a larger LCD TV than throw you a bone.

This is your opinion. Not fact.

How do you know that would be the case?

 

[speakeasy]

You can buy insurance for if you get sick or disabled on the private market.

IMHO the government should simply be a referee: provide a police force, a court system, and a military...and possibly fund large public works (roads, bridges, etc.). Anything else and things start to get sketchy.

Furthermore, the idea that if we lowered taxes, the USA would turn into a third world country is laughable. Immigrants come to this country for economic freedom, not so that they can get taxed/regulated to death. Continuing to raise taxes/regulations will kill the "golden goose."

Communism has been tried. The USSR should have been the richest country in the world by now if communism was the answer. It is not even around anymore. That should be a sign.

Who said anything about communism? Communism means the state owns the means of production and decides what something should cost, what you get paid and how much you are rationed. Having a social safety net is nothing of the sort. Do you really think Norway is a communist country?

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

Fascinating observation. I saw a video recently that precisely addressed this idea. It was about citizens in a small canton in Switzerland that happens to be one of the wealthiest communities in the world, voting not to have their government's surplus money donated to Sub-Saharan Africa. What made that decision interesting is that the canton is home to a billionaire exec of a multinational that reaps profits from its mining operations in one of the poorest parts of Africa, whose record profits that year helped the local Swiss government obtain a surplus.

 

[speakeasy]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

Fascinating observation. I saw a video recently that precisely addressed this idea. It was about citizens in a small canton in Switzerland that happens to be one of the wealthiest communities in the world, voting not to have their government's surplus money donated to Sub-Saharan Africa. What made that decision interesting is that the canton is home to a billionaire exec of a multinational that reaps profits from its mining operations in one of the poorest parts of Africa, whose record profits that year helped the local Swiss government obtain a surplus.

Seeing Africa's natural wealth being raped by Western and Chinese corporations is heart-breaking. The people that live there don't get a damn bit of benefit from it. Just a few corrupt Africans at the top and the corporations.

 

[svenski7]

Seeing Africa's natural wealth being raped by Western and Chinese corporations is heart-breaking. The people that live there don't get a damn bit of benefit from it. Just a few corrupt Africans at the top and the corporations.

I'm not sure how I personally feel about this but I think I know what Friedman's answer would be.

Friedman would maintain that the factories in poor countries provide jobs to those people. That said, the number one argument of his opponents is that, yes, the factories do provide jobs but the people are treated poorly and paid below a living wage.

What if the factories left?

The people would lose what little they had. Men would be forced into much more terrible lines of line -- possibly illegality. What's worse, a factory job making plastic widget with some pollution or backbreaking labor in trenches mining blood diamonds? Don't forget the part where the rival tribe comes through every so often and spray the workers up with AK-47s.

---------------------------------------------

In regards to the libertartards....

They used to run on a platform of being able to select on your tax return which gov't programs you would like to fund.

Don't like abortion/Planned Parenthood? Hate foreign aid? Don't check the box.

That would work about as well as Communism in the USSR. Absolutely terrible idea with good intentions.

 

[Jaydublin]

"The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty" Thomas Jefferson

I truly believe this. I know too many people living off the government who are incredibly intelligent and creative people. The problem is that they are comfortable and there are more people being made comfortable every day. I see them as the victims to the welfare system. Most people living in that system ARE capable of being productive citizens.

I became comfortable on unemployment years ago and I maxed it out... Within the first 3 weeks of it ending I had TWO six figure job offers.

Also, we would be amazed at how people would step up to help others when there isn't a 3rd party(government) already doing it, whatever the situation might be, not only handing out money. I feel like this is partly why we have no community anymore. Not to mention that by letting people become comfortable in poverty we are creating incentives for it. Handing out money to people doesn't do any good in the long term.

An example of 3rd party help is once I saw a house on fire, it was not bad yet and there were at least 10 men watching this fire grow from basically nothing... They just watched it like it was a fuckin football game while making sure 9/11 had been called of course and waited 10 minutes while the Fire Dept. arrived and 1/4 the house was in flames. Go back a few decades and every man there would have been doing all he could to put the fire out. Things have changed and having the 3rd party take care of everything let's us feel comfortable ignoring our responsibilities in the community.(just an example, not saying I don't support government paid for Fire Dept..... thats another debate)

People should not feel comfortable living off others. It is as simple as that.

 

[speakeasy]

Also, we would be amazed at how people would step up to help others when there isn't a 3rd party(government) already doing it, whatever the situation might be, not only handing out money.

I don't know man. That may be true in small towns, but in big cities if the power went out and the cops where nowhere to be seen, looting would ensue. I don't think most people care that much about the welfare of random strangers. They've done hidden video experiments where an actor playing a disabled guy was crawling around while hordes of people walked past him like he wasn't even there.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Seeing Africa's natural wealth being raped by Western and Chinese corporations is heart-breaking. The people that live there don't get a damn bit of benefit from it. Just a few corrupt Africans at the top and the corporations.

I'm not sure how I personally feel about this but I think I know what Friedman's answer would be.

Friedman would maintain that the factories in poor countries provide jobs to those people. That said, the number one argument of his opponents is that, yes, the factories do provide jobs but the people are treated poorly and paid below a living wage.

Not quite. Friedman actually addressed a question similar to Speakeasy's. His answer was actually somewhere in the middle of both of your points. The fella posing the question brought up places in the developing world that have capitalism predicated on repression and exploitation.

 

[svenski7]

Haha, that's awesome.

He straight out says that colonization is not exploitation and a bad bargain for the "master country."

Back-to-Africa-Can't-Take-My-Shades-Off boy is pissed.

Milton Friedman: Game Recognized [solid reframe]

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Haha, that's awesome.

He straight out says that colonization is not exploitation and a bad bargain for the "master country."

Back-to-Africa-Can't-Take-My-Shades-Off boy is pissed.

Milton Friedman: Game Recognized [solid reframe]

It seems that Friedman's answer in that clip supports Speakeasy's point in that many of the people in these resource-rich African countries don't have broad access to capital and free market services (i.e. bank loans, just legal system, property rights, etc) thus no means to escape from poverty. The foreign multinationals in industries like mining simply extract the resources they need by cutting deals with the corrupt elite who could care less about developing the national reforms needed to uplift the majority of their countrymen.

There was an award winning Peruvian economist who talked about how the lack of rule of law and property rights keeps many people throughout the developing world mired in poverty.

 

[speakeasy]

Haha, that's awesome.

He straight out says that colonization is not exploitation and a bad bargain for the "master country."

Back-to-Africa-Can't-Take-My-Shades-Off boy is pissed.

Milton Friedman: Game Recognized [solid reframe]

It's easy for him to shut down some college undergrad. What I'd have like to have seen was a debate between Friedman and Noam Chomsky. When he said that the U.S. has never been a colonial nation or spoke of the benefits of colonialism to the colonized, I'm sure Chomsky would've absolutely destroyed him on that.