Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.
Milton Friedman
Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [6/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
In this series I want to both look closely at who Milton Friedman was and what his views were about Social Security reform. Here is the third portion of an autobiography from Nobelprize.org:
In 1945, I joined George Stigler at the University of Minnesota, from which he had been on leave. After one year there, I accepted an offer from the University of Chicago to teach economic theory, a position opened up by Jacob Viner’s departure for Princeton. Chicago has been my intellectual home ever since. At about the same time, Arthur Burns, then director of research at the National Bureau, persuaded me to rejoin the Bureau’s staff and take responsibility for their study of the role of money in the business cycle.
The combination of Chicago and the Bureau has been highly productive. At Chicago, I established a “Workshop in Money and Banking”. which has enabled our monetary studies to be a cumulative body of work to which many have contributed, rather than a one-man project. I have been fortunate in its participants, who include, I am proud to say, a large fraction of all the leading contributors to the revival in monetary studies that has been such a striking development in our science in the past two decades. At the Bureau, I was supported by Anna J. Schwartz, who brought an economic historian’s skill, and an incredible capacity for painstaking attention to detail, to supplement my theoretical propensities. Our work on monetary history and statistics has been enriched and supplemented by both the empirical studies and the theoretical developments that have grown out of the Chicago Workshop.
In the fall of 1950, I spent a quarter in Paris as a consultant to the U.S. governmental agency administering the Marshall Plan. My major assignment was to study the Schuman Plan, the precursor of the common market. This was the origin of my interest in floating exchange rates, since I concluded that a common market would inevitably founder without floating exchange rates. My essay, The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates, was one product.
During the academic year 1953-54, I was a Fulbright Visiting Professor at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge University. Because my liberal policy views were “extreme” by any Cambridge standards, I was acceptable to, and able greatly to profit from, both groups into which Cambridge economics was tragically and very deeply divided: D.H. Robertson and the “anti-Keynesians”; Joan Robinson, Richard Kahn and the Keynesian majority.
Beginning in the early 1960s, I was increasingly drawn into the public arena, serving in 1964 as an economic adviser to Senator Goldwater in his unsuccessful quest for the presidency, and, in 1968, as one of a committee of economic advisers during Richard Nixon’s successful quest. In 1966, I began to write a triweekly column on current affairs for Newsweek magazine, alternating with Paul Samuelson and Henry Wallich. However, these public activities have remained a minor avocation – I have consistently refused offers of full-time positions in Washington. My primary interest continues to be my scientific work.
In 1977, I retire from active teaching at the University of Chicago, though retaining a link with the Department and its research activities. Thereafter, I shall continue to spend spring and summer months at our second home in Vermont, where I have ready access to the library at Dartmouth College – and autumn and winter months as a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover lnstitution of Stanford University.
From Nobel Lectures, Economics 1969-1980, Editor Assar Lindbeck, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1992
This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and first published in the book series Les Prix Nobel. It was later edited and republished in Nobel Lectures. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above.
Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1976
________________________
Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [7/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
In 1978 Milton Friedman was asked a question about Social Security.
Question: Dr. Friedman, you have been quoted as saying the Social Security tax is the worst tax on the books and should be abolished. What would you use as a substitute?
Dr. Friedman: First, you must understand that the Social Security system is not an insurance system. The taxes that people are paying under the system are not in any relevant sense financing the benefits they themselves will ultimately receive. The Social Security system is a combination of a bad tax and a bad expenditure program. I have never heard anybody who would defend either half separately, and taking two bad things and putting them together doesn’t generally make something good. But combining the two, and giving the impression that the system is self-financing, tends to support the fiction that Social Security is really an insurance contract. It’s not an insurance system at all. What it is a scheme whereby people today are paying taxes today to provide payments and benefits to other people today. There is a relationship between the amount beneficiaries receive and the amount they themselves pay, but that relationship is very small. Insofar as there is that relationship, you can justify an element of payroll tax; but insofar as a large part of Social Security benefits are properly to be understood as subsidies, welfare payments, there is no justification for financing them out of a payroll tax. In my opinion, if you are going to finance them, they should come out of federal revenues.
Now you will say to me, “Oh, but that’s “terrible. Does that mean that you’re proposing that we increase other taxes?” No! Let me go back to the fundamental principle: Government is going to spend whatever the tax system will raise plus a little more – lately a good deal more. The only effective way to keep down government spending is 10 keep down the amount of money available to government to spend. There is no other way you can do it. The effect of giving the impression that Society Security is an insurance system by using the payroll tax, and implying that what each individual pays is linked to what he receives – the effect of that has been to make the American people willing to bear a larger tax loan than they otherwise would bear. I argue the other way: Reduce taxes whenever you can! What you should worry about is total spending. If you reduce the payroll tax and throw the burden on the general tax level, that will be an effective way of stopping even worse programs.
The Daily Hatch 