Category Archives: Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman:“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 6)

March 13, 2012 – 2:06 pm

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (6 of 6)

 

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________

Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77:

Friedman: And insofar as I can give any assistance, I am delighted to, both because of my general desire to see freedom prosper, and also because I have a very strong personal sympathy and interest in Israel. I am Jewish by origin and culture. I share their values and their belief. I share the admiration which many have had for the miracles that have occurred in Israel. So if I can make any contribution to a more effective policy for preserving Israel, Israel’s freedom and strength, I would certainly be delighted to do so.

HEFFNER: Let’s turn now, in the moments we have remaining, from Israel to our own home. You had a plus and a minus evaluation of these past two years before. In terms of the president’s attitudes as well as actions, how do you, given your approach to the needs of this country, evaluate President Carter?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I have always argued that you will not solve problems by electing the right man to the White House.

HEFFNER: Certainly not by electing the wrong man.

FRIEDMAN: Yes. The only way you will ever solve problems, in my opinion, in moving the direction we want to move, is by making it a political interest of the wrong people to do the right thing.

HEFFNER: Go ahead. Spin that one out, Professor Friedman.

FRIEDMAN: I’m not knocking it. I do not want a dictator. You do not want a dictator. We want a man as president who is responsive to the will of the people. Now, we also want a man who will exercise leadership. We also want a man who will distinguish between a momentary whim of the people and some longer-run will. And we want a man who will stand up for what he believes, but not too far. Not beyond the point where he destroys his country in the process.

Now, as I look at President Carter, I think his political interests have, to a large extent, coincided with many of his personal values. He is a small, has been a small businessman. He comes from the South, he is fiscally prudent. His desire, I’m sure, to move toward a balanced budget is serious, is sincere and honest. And it has been politically prudent to do so, because we have been in the course of a very good expansion. The economy is growing. The real threat is a rise in inflation, not a recession at the moment. It’s in his political interest to try to keep this expansion going as long as he can. So fiscal conservatism in that sense has been both consistent with his principles and politically profitable. However, he wants fiscal conservatism for a different reason than I do. I want fiscal conservatism to reduce the scope of government. He wants it to enable government to exercise greater power in achieving what he considers desirable objectives. He is not a “conservative” in any way whatsoever, so far as I can see, in the sense of being in favor of a small government. He has come out openly in favor of vast expansions in government power. He has come out in favor of a national health insurance program which would, in my opinion, be a medical as well as a social and financial disaster in the United States. His energy program, as I mentioned earlier, is not a program which is designed to give the market greater play; it’s a program for running things through government. He is fundamentally, as so many people have pointed out, an engineer. That’s his background, that’s his training, that’s his disposition.

HEFFNER: You’re saying he’s also a social engineer though.

FRIEDMAN: Of course. He’s an engineer. And he’s in a position…where can he engineer? On the social level. He is a social engineer. And he believes in it. I’m not questioning that. From that point of view, I believe his principles are very undesirable for what we need for the future. Now, how it will work out…
HEFFNER: Now, in terms of what you said, that may work out well.

FRIEDMAN: What?

HEFFNER: In terms of what you said a moment ago, that may work out well.

FREIDMAN: It may. That depends, exactly. That’s why I say that what matters to me is much less what his own beliefs are than what you and the others out there and what the people of this country decide they want their government to do. Let’s not kid ourselves. The government is responsive to the public. This is a democracy. If we have been moving in the direction of collectivism, if we have been destroying the springs of private initiative and private freedom, if we have been restricting ourselves in many areas as we have, it is because the public at large has sent instructions to Washington to do that. Take a simple case. We all bemoan inflation. Inflation is terrible, it’s awful. Nobody likes inflation. Why do we have inflation? Because we the citizens have demanded it. We have sent a message to Washington. We said, “We want you to spend more on roads, we want you to spend more on health, we want you to spend more on education. But don’t tax us for it. We don’t like those damn taxes.” What happens? Congress listens. It votes more expenditures. It doesn’t vote taxes enough to cover them. But after all, the difference has to be paid for somehow. And so the difference is paid for by the hidden tax of inflation, which is the only tax that can be imposed on the American people without anybody having to vote for it. And so that inflation, we’re responsible for the inflation. Other people have been the intermediaries, but we’re ultimately responsible. Well, in the way, whether Mr. Carter’s propensities are a force for good or ill will depend in a very large measure, almost entirely, on what the sentiment of the public is, what is politically feasible, what is politically profitable for him to do. And that’s where the changing attitudes and ideas of the public play such a large role.

HEFFNER: In coming full circle as we end the program, I gather you do feel that you see signs of a changing attitude on the part of the public.

FRIEDMAN: Oh, there’s no doubt about that. Changing attitude on the part of the public, there’s no doubt about their reaction to the New York case. There’s no doubt about their loss of confidence in the ability of government programs to achieve their objective. You know, if you want to get a laugh out of anybody you talk about the post office. And it’s a universally understood thing. When I say when I try to talk against the energy program is to say, “Are you really seriously suggesting that we should turn over the production and distribution of energy to the people who run the post office? That’s what Mr. Carter is proposing.” And that gets a laugh out of people. Why? Because attitudes and views are changing.

HEFFNER: I think we’ll look again maybe two years down the road as to whether they’ve changed in the direction that you want or not. Thank you so much for joining me today, Professor Milton Friedman. It was a very, very great pleasure to talk with you once again.

FRIEDMAN: I’m very glad.

HEFFNER: And thanks, too, to you in the audience. I hope that you will join me again on The Open Mind. Meanwhile, as an old friend used to say, “Good night, and good luck.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman:“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 5)

March 10, 2012 – 11:15 am

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (5 of 6)

 

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________

Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77:

Friedman: But as a matter of practical experience, no complicated society can be run solely on the command principle. It’s just impossible. And therefore, in one sense, the market is essential; there’s no way of avoiding it. Now, you don’t mean it in that sense. You mean another sense. In what sense is it written that the free market is desirable?

HEFFNER: Well, desirable, I didn’t really mean that. NO, I meant in the first instance where is it written that this concept, which I thought was comparatively modern, of the free marketplace…

FRIEDMAN: Well, in the modern version of it it really dates back to Adam Smith in 1776, which is just 200 years. There are precursors to that of course. But as…

HEFFNER: How did we survive? How did we get there?

FRIEDMAN: Well, but you know, ideas, you know about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been talking prose all his life. Because we can give words to things doesn’t mean that those things didn’t exist before we gave words to them. The free market has been around for thousands and thousands of years. The theory of a free market in a systematic organized way dates back to Adam Smith in 1776. But the free market doesn’t.

HEFFNER: so the answer to the question of where it is written is really in Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations?

FRIEDMAN: Yes, that’s the first major source. There have been lots since. But that’s still a book worth reading.

HEFFNER: Indeed. You know, I was thinking about, before we began to do this program, I was thinking about where is it written. And I was considering going back to a very ancient civilization, mostly in terms of the reports that we have that you may in your visits to Israel advise the new Israeli government in terms of its economic problems. And I wanted to ask you a question. I wanted to ask you a question about a remark that I had heard you make in connection with this story about the role you might play in relation to the new Israeli government. You said something like this – and to the degree that I’m distorting your words or your thoughts, please correct me – “It is somewhat strange that socialism is supposed to find so many friends, and capitalism so many enemies among Jews when perhaps some people might think that the essence of the Jewish tradition is so alien to socialism and so akin to capitalism.” And I wondered, to the extent that you meant much of that, what you meant by it?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I think I mean, I would endorse certainly that statement as you put it, while going onto say it needs some elaboration in some respects. Let me see if I can put it to you in a sort of a different way. My first visit to Israel was made about 15 years ago. I was there for about three months as a visitor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. And after I left Israel, I summarized my impressions by saying that I thought that the best way to understand Israel was to recognize that two Jewish traditions were at war with one another in Israel. One of them was a very recent tradition, a tradition of 100, 150 years old. That’s the tradition of socialism. That’s the tradition you referred to in your initial comments, that it is true that on the whole the Jewish intellectuals have been strongly pro-socialist. And that’s contributed disproportionately to the socialist literature. That was the one tradition. The other tradition, I said, was a tradition that was at least 2,000 years old. It was a tradition that had arisen during the Diaspora and as a result of the Diaspora. It was a tradition of how you get around government regulations, how you find chinks in controls, how you find those areas in which the free market operates and make the most of them. It was that tradition which had enabled the Jews to survive during centuries of persecution by the constituted authorities. Once in a while there would be a monarch who would intervene in favor of the Jews. But almost always that was because there had been a Jew who had accumulated enough money through the free market, through capitalism, to have loaned money to the monarch and have him in his debt. The story in the Bible of Esther is not a very usual story. That isn’t usually the way it occurs. Most of the time the Jews have survived despite the opposition of the powers that be, not because of them. And this ancient tradition of 2,000 years is still very much alive in Israel. And what I said at that time was that fortunately for Israel the ancient tradition is strongly renewable.

Now, let me go back to that in a modern context. I believe that there are few people in the world who have benefitted as much from capitalism and free enterprise as the Jews. Suppose you ask yourself in what countries it is that the Jews have been able to survive and thrive. They’ve been able to survive and thrive primarily in those countries that have had capitalism and free enterprise. They haven’t been able to survive and thrive in the socialist utopias of Russia or of Poland. They haven’t been able to, they weren’t able to survive and thrive in the national socialist state of Nazi Germany. They have been able to survive and thrive in places like Great Britain, in Germany when it was capitalist before Hitler, in France which is largely capitalist, and the United States. And more important, in what parts of those economies have they done best? In those parts where government has had the least role to play. You do not find in the United states that the Jews have done very well in large-scale manufacturing or in commercial banking, because those are areas which are very closely intertwined with government. In banking you need a governmental franchise. And there is probably no industry in the United States in which there are fewer Jews, surprising as it may seem, in major positions of responsibility than in the commercial banking industry. Where have they thrived? In the industries which have been most competitive, where there’s been the least monopoly, private or public: retaining, which was open to all; in new industries, in Hollywood. Why? Because it was a new, brand new industry. There were no settled positions of privilege or of power, no government involvement.

So, Jews have done best – and other minorities. I’m not only speaking of Jews. If you look at the Japanese in the United States, if you look at the blacks in the United States, in every case they have done best in those areas where you have had the greatest degree of competition; and they have done worst in those areas where you have had the most monopoly and the most governmental link to government. So on the one hand, there are no people in the world who have benefitted so much from capitalism as the Jews. Look at Israel. Suppose socialism had triumphed in the world. How would Israel have gotten support? Did Israel get support in its early and difficult days from the governments of the world? Or from people? And from what people? From the Jews who had managed to make a little bit of a competence for themselves and accumulated a little funds in the capitalist bastions of the world.

So, the Jews have benefitted enormously from capitalism. And yet on the other side – and that’s the issue you raise – here you have the paradox that the Jews have been among those who have contributed much to undermine the intellectual foundations of capitalism.

HEFFNER: Is this a dichotomy that exists in contemporary Israel too?

FRIEDMAN: Of course. Of course. It has existed.

HEFFNER: Then how will you make a contribution?

FRIEDMAN: Oh, well, you know how it is. I will make a contribution. I would be delighted to if I could. But you know, people ask for advice from people who they know will give them the advice they want to hear. Well, there’s no shortage of good economists in Israel. They are very good economists. They know what to do. And in fact, the economists in Israel have not been in favor of governmental policies in Israel. It’s like it has been in the United States, where the economists have been opposed uniformly to many governmental policies, such as the price-fixing policies I was talking about, such as rent control. Similarly, the economists in Israel have been almost unanimously opposed to some, many governmental controls and regulations. What’s happened in Israel is that you now have a new party that came into power. … It’s a party that proclaims it’s belief in private enterprise. It proclaims its desire to reduce the size of government and to give greater opportunities to individuals. Their objectives are excellent. I hope they achieve them. I’m not wholly confident that they will, in fact. I have many doubts about whether they will succeed. And a reason why they have asked me if I would advise them is because they know that I believe in a free economy and that their policy is my policy. And insofar as I can give any assistance, I am delighted to, both because of my general desire to see freedom prosper, and also because I have a very strong personal sympathy and interest in Israel. I am Jewish by origin and culture. I share their values and their belief. I share the admiration which many have had for the miracles that have occurred in Israel. So if I can make any contribution to a more effective policy for preserving Israel, Israel’s freedom and strength, I would certainly be delighted to do so.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 6 of 7)

March 9, 2012 – 12:29 am

PETERSON: Well, let me ask you how you would cope with this problem, Dr. Friedman. The people decided that they wanted cool air, and there was tremendous need, and so we built a huge industry, the air conditioning industry, hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous earnings opportunities and nearly all of us now have air conditioned homes and cars and offices. Then the people decided they wanted clean air, and they couldn’t buy it in the marketplace, so they voted at the polling place. They got elected representatives to go to the Congress and say, we are going to have clean air. Now, overnight there was a new market, and the free enterprise system responded to that, and now there’s a big environmental industry making earnings, providing jobs, but also serving this public need to have the freedom to breathe clean air.

FRIEDMAN: You grossly underestimate the extent to which the private market is able to do it. It’s not an accident that the air, before you had any of this legislation, air and water were cleaner in the United States today than they were in the United States a hundred years ago. You know the automobile added one kind of pollution, but it eliminated a far worse kind of pollution. If you consider what the streets of New York would look like today if you were still transporting people by horse-drawn vehicles, you would have pollution on a scale that would stagger you. In the same way, it’s not an accident that the air is cleaner and the water purer in those countries today that are the most advanced, than they are in the backwards country. It’s not been in Afghanistan that you find clean air and water. It’s in the advanced countries. So the market is a very much more subtle mechanism than people give it credit for being.

HARRINGTON: I would like to get this back to the real world, because in the real world there is no possibility that American business, which is a welfare dependent business system, is going to adopt these ideas. What these ideas function as in the real world is a rationalization for the myth of free enterprise which disguises the fact of state capitalism as an argument against social intervention, in a society that does intervene on behalf of the steel industry very quickly. Finally in terms of the American political process, I don’t believe that the political process is so simple as having the people elect the government. The fact is that when a Jimmy Carter is elected President on a relatively liberal platform, he then has to win business confidence, because of the control of the investment process by corporate power. And I think that fact, corporate power, rationalized by free enterprise myths, is the central problem of freedom in our time, and that’s what has to be attacked.

McKENZIE: Before we come to Milton again __

FRIEDMAN: No, no. I’ve got to comment on this, because I think we mustn’t let words get in the way of what really is the case. I take it you think we don’t have socialism. I would say to you that 46 percent of every corporation in this country is owned by the U.S. Government. That’s the corporate income tax, that means out of every dollar of profit the corporation makes, 46 cents goes to the U.S. Government. The actual tax is far higher than that because you tax that doubly when it comes to the individual. The extent to which corporations control their investment decisions has been increasingly reduced. The government is dictating what they spend their investment funds on in the name of pollution control, in the name of other things. It’s a myth to suppose that there is some kind of a big corporate power over here. There was a time when corporations were more influential than they are now, but at the moment I think they’re a beleaguered minority rather than a dominant majority.

McKENZIE: I’d like to take the others into this for a moment. What is the process, for those of you who want to roll back the state, or to push back governmental influence, on the operation of the economy? Before we let Milton in on that, what would you do as an active politician, as another politician, and a businessman?

CONABLE: Well, I personally think we ought to restrain the growth of government in the future.

McKENZIE: How?

CONABLE: By putting some sort of limit on government expenditures. I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment doing that, otherwise we’re going to continue to have the government growing faster than the economy, and thus pushing more and more of the gross national product through the tin horn of government. I think that would be a mistake. It’s a difficult thing to do. I hope we can find some way to do it without making ourselves less free in some way.

McKENZIE: Governor Peterson, can it be done?

PETERSON: Yes, I think we can make substantial headway by furthering our pluralistic society, by encouraging educating more people to think comprehensively. I think one of the big problems in our world is that leaders in government and in industry are shortsighted. They don’t look at the long-term impacts of their decisions. And in a democracy such as ours, the power is with the people, just like the textbooks say, and if they get this more comprehensive understanding and knowledge, they’re gonna see to it that the special interests of the elected officials will be in tune, again reelected, and they will look at the long-term views just like the citizenry is. So I am all in favor of an all out push to get this freedom to vote in the polling place, added to the freedom of the marketplace, because that’s a potent combination.

FRIEDMAN: But voting in the polling place is a very different kind of freedom than voting in the marketplace. When you vote in the polling place, it is important, but it’s very different. When you vote, you vote for a package. And, if you are in the minority, you lose. You don’t get what you want. When you vote in the marketplace, everybody gets what he votes for. If you vote for a __ I vote for a green tie, I get a green tie. You vote for a blue tie, you get a blue tie. If we do that in the polling booth, if 60 percent of us vote for a green tie, you have to wear a green tie.

McKENZIE: Oh, but the 40 percent don’t just shut up. They can try to influence decision making to their own.

FRIEDMAN: They can try to influence __

McKENZIE: Yeah.

FRIEDMAN: __ but it’s a very different and less efficient mechanism__

McKENZIE: Yeah.

FRIEDMAN: __ for matching performance, matching results, to individual taste and preference.

VOICE OFF SCREEN: Whatever kind of car I buy, I still get dirty air.

GALVIN: There are good people running this society, and most of the people that we’re talking about work someplace, and they know that their company is doing something pretty good, or trying to do something pretty good. I think the people are going to start telling the leaders where they’ve gone wrong and start to redress it by the direction of the ballot box.

HARRINGTON: The people in general are more conservative and in particular are more liberal. That is to say, if you ask the people in general, what do you think of government, “Get it off my back, less taxes.” If you ask in particular what about health, national health; what about full employment, government is the employer of last resort. What about pollution, do something about it. Everett Ladd had an article in Fortune about a year ago, which is hardly a radical left wing journal, showing this contradiction. And I think that there is in the United States today a rapid movement to the left, right and center, which I, obviously, hope will be resolved not by an across the boards cut aimed primarily at poor and working people, but by an increasing democratization on economic power, and an increasing democratization of the government. I think that in this complicated society of huge institutions and bureaucracies, if we talk about freedom, one thing that I would like to see would be a law providing funds for any significant minority to buy the research to counter the majority.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman:“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 4)

March 8, 2012 – 6:16 am

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (4 of 6)

 

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________

Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77:

Friedman: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the United Sates and vice versa,” in that famous phrase of Mr. Wilson’s. So I don’t think you can distinguish between these two. I think that politicians and people, everybody, businessmen, politicians, scholars, we’re all seeking to pursue our own interests. We don’t have to interpret it as narrowly. My interests are in ideas as much as they are in dollars and cents or something else. But we’re all seeking to pursue our own interests. Politicians, their interests are closely connected with getting reelected. And therefore they will put primary emphasis on what will get me votes next time.

HEFFNER: Well, I was thinking of an analogy. I was thinking of drawing this comparison with the medical scientists; economic scientist and medical scientists. Medical scientists presumably will disagree minimally about what all other factors…

FRIEDMAN: Not at all. Not at all.

HEFFNER: On certain things they may disagree minimally in terms of the technical means that they should employ to deal with, to treat a patient. But in terms of considering the patients, in terms of considering their needs that are more than technical, they may disagree. And quite honestly, as to the approach to take, wouldn’t it be fair to say that this is as much a consideration as what you consider political, a political consideration among economists, which I would relate to how is my party going to be elected more readily the next time around?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I don’t either want to rule out completely that narrow interpretation, nor rule it in completely. I think economists are human beings like everybody else. Many of them do establish party loyalties. What’s more important, many have very strong private interests that are associated with which party is in power.

HEFFNER: Like what?

FRIEDMAN: Like what jogs they have. Like what prestige they have. Like what outside income they will be able to earn. You know, it was not a joke only, for years that the Brookings Institution in Washington was a home away from home for out-of-power Democratic economists. It’s not a joke now that the American Enterprise Institute is serving a similar function for out-of-power Republican economists. Surely these are not trivial and negligible. But they are not the only thing, I agree with you.

HEFFNER: You don’t really think that determinations of public policy or contributions by major economists in terms of the determination of public policy, that in those determinations one’s job in the next administration has played a major role; or do you?

FRIEDMAN: You know, you want to make it black and white. Human beings are distinguished from animals much more by the ability to rationalize than by the ability to reason. Sincerity is a much overrated virtue. It’s possible for anybody to be sincere about anything. I’m not questioning the sincerity or the motives of anybody. I’m only saying a human being is affected by those things that affect his image.

HEFFNER: Are your economic policies affected in that way?

FRIEDMAN: Of course they must have been. I can’t deny that they could have been.

HEFFNER: No, no, I’m not talking about could have been.

FRIEDMAN: Or that they have been. Or that they have been. I mean, we never know ourselves. And the man who says, “I am objective,” you k now that can’t be the case. We’re all of us imperfect human beings. We’re all of us going to be affected by these things. I’m not saying anybody else is any more or less affected than I am. Some people are less affected; some people are more. I would say on the whole you’ve got to look at it in a more complex and sophisticated way. Most people develop beliefs and ideas. Those beliefs and ideas in turn determine what policies they approve, what directions they move. That in turn reacts on them and affects their beliefs and ideas. And the whole thing is a kind of biological process of creating a complex structure that can/t be dissected into the simple black-and-white category. He is in favor of this policy because if he is in favor of that policy he will get this and this job. You can’t say that. That’s not true. I’m not saying that of anybody.

HEFFNER: Okay. I wondered about that because the question of self-interest did come up, and I was shocked by it.

FRIEDMAN: Well, you see, the economists… Take the economics profession as a whole. Because I think it’s very interesting from this point of view. The economists have a very schizophrenic situation. Our discipline of economics, as a science, predisposes all economists to be in favor of a market system, of a free market. Because that’s our business. We come to understand how a market operates. It’s a much more sensitive and sophisticated instrument than may appear on the surface or that the ordinary man in the street believes it. So every economist has a predisposition to be in favor of a market system. On the other hand, the major growth area for jobs for economists has arisen out of government regulation. So the special interests of economists is to be in favor of government regulation. How do you reconcile this? Again, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying anyone is doing this in a Machiavellian way. I’m just describing the unobserved forces that are at work on it. Well, the way in which many economists have implicitly reconciled it is by being in favor of the free market in general, and opposed to the free market in particular. “And this area is a special case that needs regulation, this area is a special case.” You know, the same thing happens to businessmen. Every businessman is in favor of private enterprise.

HEFFNER: Except in his…

FRIEDMAN: Except for himself. And he isn’t – let me emphasize – in both cases, he isn’t being Machiavellian. He isn’t being insincere. He isn’t being devious. He sincerely believes. He knows his own case. And he sincerely is persuaded that his own case is special and that it’s in the national interest to treat it differently than other cases.

HEFFNER: But this concept of the marketplace, has it always been with us?

FRIEDMAN: Yes. Oh, every society is primarily run by the marketplace. But there are many kinds of marketplaces. The political marketplace…

HEFFNER: And aren’t you talking about a particular kind?

FRIEDMAN: I’m talking… But even the particular kind, yes, there are two main kinds of marketplaces. The economic marketplace in which you buy and sell, which has much broader relevance than you might a first suppose. And the political marketplace in which decisions are made by votes or by authority through political position by command.

HEFFNER: I understand. But I just wondered whether this basic agreement that you referred to among economists, all of whom relate to the economic marketplace, I was about to ask where is it written…

FRIEDMAN: (Laughter)

HEFFNER: …where is it written that the concept of the marketplace shall prevail? Isn’t this a rather modern concept? And if it is, why must we tie ourselves to it as tightly as you would have us do, as tightly as you suggest all economists would have us?

FRIEDMAN: Well, let’s answer that in two different ways. You say, “Why must we tie to it?” Because the fact of the matter is that there is no alternative mechanism that has so far been devised which will enable large and complex societies to exist. Consider what seems like the most extreme exception: the Soviet Union. It’s not, in the first instance you would say that’s not a market economy. And yet, the main organization of resources in the Soviet Union is through the marketplace and not through government command. And this is true in all sorts of ways. Anybody who read Hedric Smith’s fascinating book on the Russians will discover that if something goes wrong with you electricity in your house, you don’t call a state office and have them send somebody. You get a government employee on his spare time to come in and fix it for you.

HEFFNER: The same thing is true here, if you can.

FRIEDMAN: Of course, of course. Well, no, if you can here, you hire somebody. But in Russia supposedly you ought to get a state official, governmental official. It’s all done by government agencies. It’s not here, yet.

Go on. Take food. Something like 25, 30, 35 percent of the people in the Soviet Union are required to produce a food. They permit small private plots. Those plots account for two to three percent of the arable land of the Soviet Union. They produce a third of the food in private markets and distributed through markets. If you have, if you look at the way in which labor is organized, the buyers are governmental agencies. But people are attracted to one job or another by the job or by the pay that is offered to them. Fundamentally, the Soviet Union is a market economy, but it’s distorted market economy because the extraordinarily great role of government forces the market into channels which are not efficient and not effective. And so much of its power is wasted in simply overcoming the bureaucratic mess of the government. That’s why the Soviet Union has such a low standard of life. So it’s interesting, on a matter of theory. Well, I don’t like that word. ON a matter of sort of abstract ideal, you can conceptualize a command economy in which the market plays no role. It’s an army. A general gives an order to a colonel, a colonel to a major, a major to a captain, and so on down the line. Or you can visualize a voluntary exchange economy, a pure market economy in which everything is conducted by voluntary agreement among individuals’ purchase and sale.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman:“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 3)

March 7, 2012 – 8:22 am

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (3 of 6)

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________

Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77:

Friedman: Now what’s wrong with that? Two things are wrong. First place, nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. We talked about New York City. About seven or eight years ago (I’ve forgotten exactly when it was – Kenneth Galbraith in a n article in New York magazine said there were no problems in New York that could not be solved by the city spending enough money. If my memory serves me right, he said by doubling New York’s budget. Well, in the meantime, New York’s budget has quadrupled, and the problems have gotten worse, not better. And that’s cause and effect. Because when you say spend more money, whose money? The City of New York spent more money, but where did it get it? From its citizens. There is no more money in total to be spent. But nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. So you had more money being spent carelessly, and less money being spent carefully.

In the second place, equally important, you cannot spend somebody else’s money unless you first get it. How do you get it? Ultimately and fundamentally be sending a policeman to take it away from him. So the concept of doing good with somebody else’s money has force or coercion built into it as an essential feature. And those flows, the waste which arises out of spending somebody else’s money and the coercion which is unavoidable, destroy the good and the idea of doing good and convert it into doing bad.

HEFFNER: I’m interested in your second point because I’ve wondered, as you were addressing yourself to the subject, I’ve wondered whether it would be the philosophical climate that’s created, that of the policeman who comes and takes those tax monies, those funds, or is your opposition that of the economist? Is it that of the economist of that of the philosopher? Can we distinguish between them?

FRIEDMAN: We can distinguish between them very much. The economist, as economist, I can say what will be the consequences of doing something or other. As an economist, if you say to me – let me take a New York City problem – if I analyze to you the disastrous consequences of rent control in New York City, the effect which that has had on the deterioration of buildings, on the abandonment of buildings, on the reduction in the tax base, on slums, all of that is a predictable consequence of rent control. It’s a straight matter of technical economics that can be shown with a curve. Wherever rent control was introduced, whenever it was introduced, whether in Britain or in France or anywhere, it doesn’t matter; that’s purely a technical consequence of rent control. On the other hand, if I say, regardless of the consequences it is morally wrong for a government official to force me to rent a piece of property to you for less than the price at which I would voluntarily rent it, at that point I am now speaking as a man with values and philosophy. That is to say, you have both principle and expediency involved. The economist talks to the expediency; and the philosopher, the ethicist, the human being, talks to the principle.

HEFFNER: Now, the philosophers may disagree. Do the economists on this question of rent control and its relationship to New York’s…

FRIEDMAN: Oh, no, no. On rent control there’s no disagreement whatsoever. Oh, the interesting thing is that the public at large believes that economists disagree. The fact is that on most technical subjects in economics you’ll find almost no disagreement.

HEFFNER: All right.

FRIEDMAN: Rent control is certainly one example in which I will challenge you to find from the professional economists from the left to the right, I will challenge you to find anybody who will defend rent control from a technical economic point of view.

HEFFNER: All right. Now, when the program began, I was going to refer to you as this country’s foremost conservative economist. And you demerit that, you object to that characterization. And I can appreciate that. Is it not appropriate or proper though to say that there are economists in this country who fall into a camp that one might generally say is on the right, and others who fall into a camp that others might generally say is on the left?

FRIEDMAN: Yes.

HEFFNER: Or can we not say that economists disagree on major issues?

FRIEDMAN: Well, they disagree on major political issues. The question is whether they disagree on economic grounds or on noneconomic grounds. First, my objection to conservatives is not the same as the objections to what’s right or left. Right or left are very ambiguous terms. But conservative is a very definite, clear term. A conservative is somebody who wants to conserve, who keeps things as they are.

HEFFNER: And you don’t like the way things are.

FRIEDMAN: I don’t like things. I want to change them. I’m a radical. Who are conservatives today? The New Dealers, the people who are called in this country erroneously, liberals, the people who are in favor of big government. Mayor Beame’s a conservative. Hubert Humphrey’s a conservative. They want to continue along the path we’ve been going. You have two different dimensions along which, it seems to me, you can consider people. One of them they want to keep things the way they are, or change them. Conservative or radical. From that point of view I’m a radical. Second, insofar as things are changed, in what direction do they want to change them? You may have radicals who are people who are not conservative, who want to move farther in the direction we’ve been going, who want to have a completely socialized state, a completely collectivist state. And there is seems to me to the right terms are the ancient and honorable term “liberal” in its original sense and meaning of and pertaining to freedom; people like myself who want to maintain a free society. A word that has been much abused. And collectivists or stateists. People who want to have things organized through the state.

Now, the interesting thing about your question about economists is that there is a misleading impression of disagreement among economists. I’ve had this experience many times. Get a dozen people in a room together, some of them economists and some noneconomists, political scientists, sociologists, journalists, whatever they may be. Start any subject going. Within 15 minutes all the economists will be on the same side. Whatever their political persuasion is. Now, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have different political views and different political attitudes. But those derive very little from their technical economic discipline, and a great deal from their values, their political orientations. Let me show you, again illustrate. When President Ford two years ago and more had a summit conference in Washington at which there were a collection of economists, to discuss the problems of that time, there was a manifesto issued by all the economists present with the exception I think of two, in favor of a long list of 28 (I think it was) measures at reducing governmental intervention into the economy. Economists from the left to the right were in favor of eliminating interstate commerce commissions in control of rail, of CAB control of airfares. And I now have forgotten of the… But there were, I think 28 such items on which they agreed. So I think the appearance of disagreement is very much greater than the reality.

What happens – let me take the energy problem we started about – suppose you were to ask economists – I don’t care whether they’re on the left or the right – “What would be the appropriate way to handle the energy problem if you could neglect all considerations of political feasibility? As technical economists, how should the energy problem be handled?” I will lay you a large wager that the bulk of the economists, 80, 90 percent will say, “Oh, well, that’s easy. You should let the market go. Let market price oil and market price natural gas.” Among the things that all the economists were agreed on at that summit was that you ought to get rid of the price ceilings on natural gas.

HEFFNER: Now, their differences will arise from what?

FRIEDMAN: At this level their differences will arise because they will say, “Oh, of course that’s the right solution.” But you know it’s not perfectly feasible. And so they go down the trap you were trying to drive me down before. Having accepted that it’s not politically feasible, then instead of being in favor of what I think is the right thing, I’m going to try to ask which is the least bad thing. So the economist comes out and says “Well, as the second best thing…” — he doesn’t even say this, but he thinks it – he says, “Well, I really have to be practical. It’s not feasible. You’re going to continue with price control on natural gas. You’re going to continue with price control of fuel crude oil. So maybe it would be a little better if we allowed those fixed prices to be higher, so we’ll come out in favor of higher prices and not attack the controls.”

HEFFNER: But now, Professor Friedman, you use the word “political.” You say this is a political decision. Is it political, or is it philosophical? Does it relate to the desire to have one’s party reelected? Elect, elect, elect; or spend, spend, spend and the elect, elect, elect? Or is it related to the sense of what we can impose upon the human beings who make up the electorate?

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, you’re trying to put things into watertight categories that cannot be put there.

HEFFNER: Then take them out.

FRIEDMAN: Human beings are, every human being has a capacity of knowing what he believes is the right thing is also the right thing for the country.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman:“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 2)

March 6, 2012 – 7:23 am

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (2 of 6)

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________

Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77:

Friedman: General public ideas are much slower to move than intellectual ideas. That’s a fortunate thing. The public at large never moved as far in the direction of socialism and collectivism as the intellectual community did. They preserved a kind of a stability which kept us from going even faster than we did. One of the reasons in my opinion why Britain went so much faster toward a completely socialized state than we have gone is because the intellectual and ruling communities in Britain are more homogeneous and more nearly one. Well fortunately we have a much more diversified and varied set of elites. So I think the public at large never went as far as the intellectuals in that direction. And I am sure they are slow in turning around and going back the other way. I’m not saying that there has been any major trend in the public opinion at large, but only that in the intellectual community, in the community of the youngsters and young people who are coming up; no change in the older ones either.

You know, human beings have certain very common characteristics. It’s very hard for anybody to change his mind after he’s gotten to the age of 25 or 30 and gets set in his ways. It’s always fascinating to me. I had an interview this morning, a radio interview with a group of youngsters from a radio program called “Focus on Youth.” They were lively, energetic, bright; they were a wonderful group. They had a guest book in which they asked me to write a message and my name. And soothe message I wrote was “How is it that these bright, energetic, brilliant, dynamic young people turn within such few years into such deadly dull, unimaginative inactive adults?”

HEFFNER: You mean the rest of us?

FRIEDMAN: The rest of us. All of us. You’ve noticed this, I’m sure. You’re on the campus, on Rutgers. Haven’t you always been impressed by the contrast between…the liveliness and active minds of the young graduate students and of the opposite on the part of the settled, permanent tenured instructors?

HEFFNER: Well, we could argue that point out, Professor Friedman, at some point.

FRIEDMAN: I don’t want to overstate it. There’s an element to it. Well, going back to the main point, I believe it is true, and I’m sure you’re right and many people will believe that government owes them something. The point is that the first step in people’s conversion is never with respect to their own privileges but always with respect to somebody else. Everybody always knows he’s an exception. You ask people, “Do you think government should be cut down to size?” “Oh, of course.” “How about the program you benefit from?” “Oh, well, that’s a special case. That needs more money.” So I don’t believe there’s any contradiction between people saying “Gimme”, on the one hand; and these same people acting in another capacity to as to hold down the rate of growth in the state.

HEFFNER: You know, I would ask you the same question that I asked you a couple of years ago, and that is, why do you hold on, as it seems to me you do, hold on almost for dear life, to a kind of optimism despite all the things that you see and comment on in front of you? Why not recognize the situation for what it is, as you describe it so well, and then perhaps point ourselves in a different direction?

FRIEDMAN: Down the same road. There’s no different direction down that road. Don’t kid yourself. There just is no different direction down that road. This isn’t a strange road. We, you and I, who have been lucky enough to have been born in a free society, take freedom for granted as if it’s a natural phenomenon. But let me ask you, what fraction of the human race today lives in free societies?

HEFFNER: Tiny, tiny, tiny percentage.

FRIEDMAN: Over history, what fraction at any moment of time ever lived in free societies?

HEFFNER: Even tinier.

FRIEDMAN: Even tinier.

HEFFNER: I’m leading you down the garden path, Professor Friedman.

FRIEDMAN: No, you’re not. No, you’re not. It is true that the normal condition of mankind is tyranny and misery. We’ve escaped. We’ve been extraordinarily fortunate to escape into an island of freedom and prosperity. If we do not maintain that island of freedom, of prosperity, if we do not maintain the essential features of this society which made that freedom and prosperity possible, there isn’t a wide range of alternatives. We go to misery and tyranny, to the normal state of mankind. Why am I optimistic? Because we’re also ignorant. If we could really predict the future, you couldn’t be optimistic. But we’ve seen historically time and again that people have tried to make long-range predictions and not been very good at it. The human race is a funny thing. It’s always turning up surprises on you. People are capable of doing things you wouldn’t have expected to; of rising to the circumstance. And I suppose I maintain my optimism partly because my innate character is optimistic. But partly because the consequences of not recognizing our state of affairs, of not acting in time to check, seem to me so horrendous that I cannot but believe unless people realize the alternative before them they won’t take measures to make sure it doesn’t happen.

HEFFNER: Well, what took us into this little island of time in which we are so different or have enjoyed a difference from all the history of mankind?

FRIEDMAN: Well, that’s a very interesting question, and it’s one that can be spread more broadly. It’s a subject I’ve been very much interested in. From time to time in man’s history there have been golden ages. The fifth century B.C. in Greece, the Renaissance in Italy, the first Elizabethan period in England, the nineteenth century in Britain. We’re in the midst of what I regard as a golden age in the United States, the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Now, the interesting question is how is it here, to take it out of our own context, here’s the Greek peninsula. I refer to it as Peloponnesian, and somebody reminded me that it is not. What is it? It’s a different peninsula. At any rate, the area where…

HEFFNER: We’ll accept it as such.

FRIEDMAN: Okay. It was the same people there in the sixth century B.C. and in the fifth century B.C., the same people in the fourth century as in the fifth century. Why is it in the fifth century you have this sudden flowering, this enormously productive and brilliant period; it disappears in the fourth, third, second century B.C.? Why is it? Same people. Well, I think in many ways the fundamental explanation – and now I’m simplifying and conjecturing; this isn’t a solid, well-sustained hypothesis – is that some accident comes along which wipes the slate clean of restraints that have been holding people back. In our own golden age it’s very clear what that was. It was a new continent, with new people coming, with a new form of government, with a Constitution, the Declaration of Independence. It was an opportunity in which people were unrestrained and in which the natural instincts for people to improve their lot were given freest and fullest reign.

Well, what happens, and the reason these golden ages tend to be relatively brief, the reason they last 100 years, 150 years at most, is that as time passes the slate gets filled up. It’s very much easier to introduce restrictions and restraints than it is to remove them. It’s easier to pass a low than it is to repeal a low. And so over the course of time you tend to impose these chains and restraints on yourselves, mostly for good reasons. The initial objectives are always good. That doesn’t mean the outcome is. And finally, the slate becomes so full – if I may continue to use that image – that there’s no more room to write on, and you need somehow something which will provide for another removal of restraints.

HEFFNER: What do you think would provide now for a tabula rasa again, a wiping clear of the slate?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I think the first thing that’s necessary to wipe clear the slate is to set a limit to government spending. The thing that has been encroaching more and more upon that slate is that whereas until 1928 or 9, total government spending in the United States, federal, state and local, never exceeded ten percent of our income, except in the Civil War and the First World War. It has now risen to over 40 percent of our income. If that continues…well, 40 percent is an awful lot. In Britain now it’s reached somewhere between 50 and 60 percent. The first necessity, I think, as a tactical matter, is to set an end to that. As a strategic matter, the main necessity is to have a change in the intellectual climate of opinion which will substitute a belief in the individual responsibility for the false belief in social responsibility. Let me emphasize, the problems that have arisen for us have not come from evil people who were trying in conspiracy or anything like that to enslave us. That hasn’t been our problem. Our problems have arisen from good people who were trying to do good, but trying to do good is a fundamentally flawed way. The welfare state is in many ways a noble construct, a noble concept. It’s the concept that we ought to help our fellow men. What flaws it is that it’s one thing for you to help me out of your pocket; it’s another thing for your to help me out of his pocket. And the fundamental flaw of the welfare state, in my opinion, is the idea that you should do good with somebody else’s money.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman:“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 1)

March 5, 2012 – 6:41 am

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (1 of 6)

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________

Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77:

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: “A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77

I’m Richard Heffner, your host on The Open Mind. My guest today is perhaps this country’s foremost economist, Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago, of Newsweek magazine, and of wherever it is that persons of brilliance and concern gather to discuss the fate of individual liberty in the midst of ever-expanding governmental responsibilities. Well, that’s the way I introduced Professor Friedman on The Open Mind two years ago. Since then he has been as brilliant, has delighted still more discerning citizens of the world, has become a Nobel laureate, and is here today to pick up where we left off.

Professor Friedman, we were saying two years ago, literally, we left off on the road to serfdom. I was looking back at the transcript of our program together, and we did leave off on the road to serfdom, the road to an overabundance of interference in the lives of most individuals. And you said, “I really do think the chance is a good deal less than 50 percent that we’ll be able to avoid it.” And by avoiding it you were referring to this road to serfdom. Now, two years later, have you changed your mind? Is it still 50 percent? Is it 40 percent, 60 percent, or what?

FRIEDMAN: I am sorry to say that I haven’t changed my mind. I wish I could say I had a favorable direction. I think the odds at the moment are still less than 50 percent. In the past two years there have been some favorable developments from this point of view and some unfavorable ones. If you start with the unfavorable ones first, the developments in Great Britain have been very unfavorable from this point of view. Britain has been in an increasing crisis economically. And that is threatening the political stability of Great Britain. Great Britain, after all, is a fount for most of our ideas on political freedom and liberty. And if Britain were to go, that would not be a good thing from the point of view of the world as a whole or the US in particular. On the continent of Europe, Italy and France seem to be on the verge of moving toward governments in which the communist party will either be dominant or will play a large role. They may yet escape that fate. But certainly the possibility of that development today is larger than it was two years ago. At home in the United States, on the unfavorable side, the energy program development is from a fundamental point of view the most threatening at the moment to the preservation of a free society.

HEFFNER: Why do you say that?

FRIEDMAN: Because the plans that are being made and the programs that are being offered with respect to it are programs fundamentally for nationalizing or the equivalent of nationalizing the production, distribution, consumption of energy. If you look at the program that has been proposed by various groups, not necessarily only those by the Carter administration, they are programs for turning over control over the production and distribution of energy to governmental bureaucracies. That’s a move in the direction of a corporate state. It’s a move of replacing private initiative and voluntary action by compulsory governmental action. Those are the unfavorable developments.

On the favorable side, if I may start with what I think has been the most favorable development of the past two years and one that many people will not find favorable, it’s been what’s happened New York City. Now, that’s very unfavorable for the citizen of New York.

HEFFNER: Tell me about that. I am a citizen of New York.

FRIEDMAN: But for the country as a whole it’s been the most dramatic element that has shaken the confidence of the public at large in the virtues of big government, of paternalistic government, of social welfare measures. Here is New York City. The most welfare state oriented electorate in the country. The city which has the largest government spending per person. A city which has the greatest problems of any city in the country, in which government spending far from solving problems has created or exacerbated them. Now, from the point of view of the public at large, the experience of Britain should have been just as great a cautionary tale. But Britain is a long way off; it’s a different country. New York is close to home; everybody knows about New York and is aware of New York. And therefore the problems of New York City have had, I think,, a very healthy effect on the attitudes of the public at large toward the role that government should play in their lives.

Similarly, on a number of a wide range of other issues there has been increasing disillusionment with what government can accomplish. We all know from all the polls that governmental agencies, whether it be the Congress or the White House or the bureaucracy, rank very low in public esteem. There has been a gathering tax revolt, a gathering reaction against big spending by government. It is this reaction against big spending, this decline in confidence that the way to solve a problem is to throw money at it which has been the major political force behind what commentators have been describing as Mr. Carter’s fiscal conservatism. Now, that’s a good trend. Much more fundamental and much more important potentially from the long run is what’s been happening in the world of ideas. The ideas of socialism, of collectivism, of central planning, of the welfare state, which were for so long the dominant ideology of the intellectual community, have become increasingly discredited. That line of thinking is dead. It has nothing to offer to a young, hopeful man who is trying to look for something to believe in and to have faith in. The ideas and individualism of freedom, of each person doing his own thing, the idea that maybe you have a better society if people tend to their own knitting rather than everybody trying to tend to everybody else’s. Those ancient and honorable ideas are having a resurgence. They have a much better hearing today on campuses, among the intellectual community in general than they did even as short a time ago as two years. That intellectual development, I think, is all to the good. But whether it will be able to stop the road to serfdom, stop us from going all the way down to the road serfdom is a real question, because once you get an avalanche going, if that’s the right image, once you get a big car going down the road it has an enormous amount of inertia. And it takes something really to stop it and turn it around. And the real problem is whether the changing climate of ideas can take effect soon enough before it is overwhelmed by the onrushing behemoth of the state.

HEFFNER: Professor Friedman, I’m interested in what you say as what you see as a shift in ideas away from the welfare state, away from socialism, away from stateism. Yet I had the occasion recently to look at a series of reports that indicated what citizens in this fair city, New York, were thinking about, what they were concerned about. And I was fascinated to note – now, this isn’t two years ago, this is very recently – to note that they are still concerned about the services that they want, additional services. They want more, they want more, they want more. And perhaps on the campuses, perhaps you and your friends are terribly much aware of what the “gimmes” have done to us. But what indication is there that really at the depth of this society, at the basic level of this society, people are moving away from an insistence upon more and more social services?

FRIEDMAN: Well, maybe there isn’t, and maybe you’re right. In which case that pessimistic evaluation that we started out with is supported. But I think one must distinguish between common opinion at a moment and the underlying movement of intellectual ideas which only determines common opinion after a very long lag. Now, of course, most people most times would like to get something for nothing. They…always have the gimmes, in your very evocative term. But yet – and New York, of course, is exceptional, as I said before, New York is the most welfare-oriented electorate in the country – and yet even the people in New York, I suspect, are more aware than they were before about the price, the cost, the consequences of trying to get things by that device of getting it through government. And undoubtedly the majority of the people have not been moved…

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Discussion on Equality from Milton Friedman and Bradley Gitz

March 4, 2012 – 5:42 pm

Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth

Uploaded by on Feb 12, 2010

Milton Friedman clears up misconceptions about wealth redistribution, in general, and inheritance tax, in particular. http://www.LibertyPen.com

__________________

Check out this excellent article below on equality from today’s Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (paywall):

What is equality?

By Bradley Gitz

This article was published today at 3:00 a.m

LITTLE ROCK — A central problem in the “fairness” debate stems from the refusal (perhaps inability?) of those propelling it to define what the word means.

To say that the current level of income inequality is “unfair” only makes sense, for instance, if you have in mind a reasonable conception of what a fair distribution of income would look like. To complain that income inequality has grown compared to 30 years ago only makes sense if we begin with the assumption that income 30 years ago was more “fairly” distributed.

What the proponents of “fairness” are really arguing, then, is that fairness must be defined in terms of degree of equality.

Why this should be so is never explained, as there is no intrinsic reason for assuming that those who have less should have more or that those who have more should have less.

In the classrooms in which I spend a fair amount of time, there is, along these lines, no reason to believe that those who receive poor grades have been treated less “fairly” than those who receive good ones, nor any assumption that those grades should be changed or determined differently in order to make them more equal. Many may resist the conclusion, but equality is not equivalent to, or even necessarily part of, concepts like justice or “fairness.”

Using equality as a barometer of societal fairness also ignores the fact that the term has different meanings for different people.

The original understanding of equality, upon which the American founding was based, meant only “equal protection” under the law. In such a conception there was no pretense that everyone was equal in ability or character, only that everyone would have the same basic (inalienable) rights. The “natural inequalities” flowing from our “different and unequal faculties for acquiring property” would be accepted and it was considered inevitable as well as just (“fair”) that some would get more than others.

Thus, in the “equal protection” framework there was acceptance of considerable income inequality, but also efforts to prevent such inequality from undermining equality of rights and status before the law (what the Founders called “unnatural inequality”).

At the opposite extreme is the form of equality known as “equality of condition,” the central goal of the political left since at least Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Based on the idea that the only “fair” society is one in which everyone has roughly the same amount of wealth, this version of equality necessarily allocates great power to the state in order to redistribute resources.

Although few liberals today would openly embrace this particular version of equality (in part because of its less than-admirable historical progeny), its influence can still be found in the way the left accepts redistribution of wealth (for the sake of “fairness”) as a primary function of government, considers whatever level of income inequality that exists at any given time to be unacceptable, and proves eager to grant government ever-greater power to remake society in a more egalitarian direction.

If we leave things at this point, it is relatively easy to understand from where both the right (equal protection) and left (equality of outcome) come at the equality issue. Problems arise, however, when we introduce that third, murkier and inherently problematic version called “equality of opportunity.”

Equality of opportunity is the most dangerous form of equality because it is the version that sounds most appealing in theory but is the most difficult to establish in practice. We can all agree that equal protection of the law is a worthy goal, even if it doesn’t go far enough to satisfy the left.

We can also debate in fairly straightforward manner whether we want to pursue equality of outcome and can even bring into that debate the results (invariably dismal) of previous efforts in different parts of the world to establish it.

But when we move onto the ambiguous terrain of equality of opportunity, all is lost, precisely because we don’t know what kinds of public polices it requires or where on the continuum between equal protection and equal outcomes to place it.

How far, for example, beyond equal protection does it require us to go in terms of granting additional powers to the state to take from some and give to others? And does its acceptance inexorably if unwittingly take us toward equal outcomes on the sly, through the back door?

In a free society where income is inevitably widely distributed, equal opportunity will never exist because the children of the rich will always have many more advantages then the children of the poor. A society truly dedicated to realizing equality of opportunity would consequently have to wage a determined war against those “natural inequalities” that flow from freedom itself, and which are transmitted in the form of better or worse prospects in life from generation to generation.

________

Milton Friedman discusses the inheritance of talent on “Free to Choose”

Uploaded by on Nov 1, 2009

“The inheritance of talent is no different (from an ethical point of view) from the inheritance of other forms of property– of bonds, of stocks, of houses, or of factories. Yet many people resent the one, but not the other.”

From “Free to Choose” (1980), Part V: “Created Equal.”

________________

The crucial realization in all this is that life isn’t fair. The central threat to freedom comes from those who think they can use politics to make it so.

–

———◊-

———

Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

Related posts:

Case Study on Chelsea Clinton:Can equality of results be acheived best by punishing those who were born rich?

  Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth Uploaded by LibertyPen on Feb 12, 2010 Milton Friedman clears up misconceptions about wealth redistribution, in general, and inheritance tax, in particular. http://www.LibertyPen.com _______________________________ Many times in the past our government has tried to even the playing field but the rich and poor will always be with us […]

Thomas Sowell:Romney not conservative enough

I have loved reading Thomas Sowell’s articles for many years. I remember when Milton Friedman brought him into the discussion in his film series “Free to Choose.” I have put some links below to some of those episodes. Many papers across the country carried this story below from Sowell. Basically he points out in the […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 7 of transcript and video)

Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series. Created Equal [7/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose […]

Liberals’ solution for the poor is more welfare, but that will not work

Milton Friedman’s solution to limiting poverty Liberals like Michael Cook just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 6 of transcript and video)

Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series. Created Equal [6/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose […]

“Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 5 of transcript and video)

Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series. Created Equal [5/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose […]

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 4 of transcript and video)

Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series. Created Equal [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose […]

What does created equal mean according to Milton Friedman?

What does created equal mean according to Milton Friedman? In his article “A test for first among equals,” Arkansas News Bureau, September 30, 2011, Matthew Pate asserted: Among the most familiar passages in the Declaration of Independence is the section reading, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 5 of 7)

March 2, 2012 – 12:26 am

Part 5

Milton Friedman: I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation in terms of industrialist versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and it can’t get away with something except by producing a better product at a lower cost; and that’s why I don’t want government to step in and help the business community. Now I want to go to your question about Medicare. There are many people who have benefited from Medicare, but you’re not looking at the cost side. What has happened to the people who are paying for it? It isn’t __ we don’t have a free good, it isn’t coming from nowhere. And are they benefiting from it in a cost effective way. Those are the questions. It’s demagoguery, if you’ll pardon me, Michael Harrington, to say the people who have Medicare are freer. Of course, in one dimension. But they themselves have been paying all their lives, and have they gotten a good bargain? At the moment they have. The young men, the young working people who are going into Social Security now, they’re going to get a very raw deal indeed.

CONABLE: Milton, interestingly on that point, people over 65 are paying more of their spendable income for medical care now, then they were before Medicare was enacted. It’s been not a very successful program. Government doesn’t do things well.

FRIEDMAN: It doesn’t do things well. If it hasn’t done things well in Britain, in Canada, in the United States.

McKENZIE: Now, Milton, then you took us to Hong Kong on exactly that point. That here you said was a true model of market operating. Now is that really a fair description of Hong Kong?

FRIEDMAN: At the moment, yes. It’s not __ again, there aren’t any such things as a hundred percent one way and a hundred percent the other. Everything is mixed, of course. Hong Kong has a government, and it happens to be a government __ in this case there’s no democracy in Hong Kong. It’s run from Britain; it’s a Crown Colony of Britain, and the British Governor General and so on, and Financial Secretary run it. But the situation in Hong Kong is that there is very little government regulation of industry. There’s complete free trade. There are no tariffs; there are no export subsidies; there are no restrictions on the purchase and sale of monies, so that it is, comes about as close to a complete free market as you can find in the world today, and there is no doubt that the main beneficiaries have been the low-income people, the poor people who have poured into Hong Kong by the hundreds of thousands and millions, out of Red China and who keep on trying to get in there. This goes to Michael Harrington’s question, if an industrial system, if a free enterprise system is a system in which the poor are ground beneath the heels of the rapacious industrialists he’s worried about, how would he explain the success in Hong Kong, the extent to which people continue to vote with their feet to go there.

CONABLE: You’re not asking us to make of the United States one gigantic Hong Kong, or sweatshop, or whatever you want to call it. You would acknowledge that there is a historical development of an economy, and what may be right for one stage in the development of an economy may not be right for another stage. Isn’t the issue, where do we go from here? What pragmatic decisions do we make about the direction of the American economy. Should it be toward more and more government, or should it be trying to preserve an adequate balance between freedom of choice and government intervention?

FRIEDMAN: Again, the problem is to distinguish two things. This comes back to an earlier comment. The circumstances in terms of the physical arrangements, and the circumstances in terms of the rules that guide the society. Now in the case of Hong Kong, of course, I’m not asking that we crowd our people to a density of population such as Hong Kong has. Hong Kong is a marvelous example just because its circumstances are so terrible, it’s physical circumstances. And the people in Hong Kong would love to get elsewhere, into less crowded circumstances, if other people would let them in. This is the problem of immigration, which is a very important restriction on human freedom. In the period before 1913 we had complete, a hundred percent freedom of immigration into the United States. We don’t now, but go back to your question.

CONABLE: Do you think Hong Kong __ do you think Hong Kong would exist if it weren’t in close juxtaposition to Communist China?

FRIEDMAN: Hong Kong would exist. It is very dubious that it would have policies it has now if it weren’t in close juxtaposition to Communist China. Well, now, but to answer your question directly, yes. I am in favor of the United States having not the circumstances, not the physical circumstances, but the policies that Hong Kong has had of zero tariffs, complete free trade, of no restrictions on exports, no restrictions on monetary transactions, of a far greater degree of __ far lesser degree of governmental regulation. I agree with what Russell Peterson said before, that there are third party effects. There are things like pollution. The question is whether we’re handling them in the right way, and I think we’re not.

McKENZIE: I want to bring Bob Galvin in here. Bob, the beginning of Milton’s agenda there, no tariffs, for example, no restrictions, no quotas. Now, will business, big business, wear that kind of policy?

GALVIN: I think big business and all business could wear that kind of policy if we could find the appropriate balancing factor that in the rest of world trade, where we trade outside our border, and as others come in, we are required to trade against socialized institutions. That’s a very different kind of an institution than the private institution. The private institution can clearly operate more efficiently if it is not imposed upon by an artificial price from the socialized institution across the seas. So I think there has to be, not protectionism, but there has to be an international rule of the road that prevents the socialized institution from subsidizing and taking advantage of the private institution.

McKENZIE: Do you include the nine countries to the Common Market, though, as socialist countries, or are you prepared to have competition from all the nine countries in the Common Market?

GALVIN: The nine countries of the European Common Market engage in the most dramatic of the socialized institutions.

FRIEDMAN: I don’t agree with him at all. We are hurting ourselves by restricting trade from abroad. Other countries are hurting themselves and us by the measures you describe, but we’re only hurting ourselves even more if we imitate them.

CONABLE: I don’t think, Dr. Friedman that your mother would get a job sewing today in America, if we had no tariffs at all. What would happen is, there wouldn’t be any sewing jobs in America, we’d be making nothing but computers. (several talking at once.)

FRIEDMAN: But then there would be some other kinds of jobs. Then she would get a job at a very low level in making computers.

McKENZIE: Yeah. Although you face the problem, That you’ve had both a leading businessman and a leading conservative Congressman, not accepting your prescription of sweeping away

FRIEDMAN: But, of course, the two greatest enemies __ I would say the greatest enemies of free enterprise and of freedom in the world have been on the one hand the industrialists, and on the other hand most of my academic colleagues, who end up in government. For opposite reasons. (laughter)

FRIEDMAN: For opposite reasons.

McKENZIE: Michael Harrington, I guess, would agree with this.

FRIEDMAN: People like Michael Harrington, and my academic colleagues, want freedom for themselves. They want free speech, they want freedom to write, they want freedom to publish, to do research, but they don’t want freedom for any of those awful businessmen. Now the businessmen are very different. Every businessman wants freedom for somebody else, but he wants special privilege for himself. He wants a tariff from Congress, and the Congress __ well the way in which Congressmen get elected is by performing favors to constituents. And if indeed you were to wipe out completely all tariffs, if you were to reduce government controls in this country to what they are now, I do not think that would be in the self-interest of __

McKENZIE: Well, then __

FRIEDMAN: __ even Barber, Conable, for whom I have the very greatest respect, or Bob Galvin, for whom I have the respect. I think it would be in the self-interest of Michael Harrington.

McKENZIE: Now let’s ask what the American people want and will wear, because you’re saying, in effect, that to get elected the Congressman is giving the people what they want. Now, aren’t you saying in the end, then, the people don’t want this or don’t understand the advantage of it?

FRIEDMAN: I’m saying that my whole function and purpose is to try to persuade the people to make a different thing politically profitable. I’m trying to persuade the people to make it clear that Congressmen who pursue these policies are gonna lose their jobs, and if we do that, Congressmen aren’t pursuing their self-interests. They’re in a market, there’s a political market. They’ve got a product to sell, and they’ve got to appeal to their customers. And I am just engaging in the kind of advertising Mr. Galvin and other companies use.

McKENZIE: We’ve got another very experienced politician, Governor Peterson.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 4 of 7)

February 24, 2012 – 12:21 am

The fundamental principal of the free society is voluntary cooperation. The economic market, buying and selling, is one example. But it’s only one example. Voluntary cooperation is far broader than that. To take an example that at first sight seems about as far away as you can get __ the language we speak; the words we use; the complex structure of our grammar; no government bureau designed that. It arose out of the voluntary interactions of people seeking to communicate with one another. Or consider some of the great scientific achievements of our time __ the discoveries of an Einstein or Newton __ the inventions of Thomas Alva Edison or an Alexander Graham Bell or even consider the great charitable activities of a Florence Nightingale or an Andrew Carnegie. These weren’t done under orders from a government office. They were done by individuals deeply interested in what they were doing, pursing their own interests, and cooperating with one another.

This kind of voluntary cooperation is built so deeply into the structure of our society that we tend to take it for granted. Yet the whole of our Western civilization is the unintended consequence of that kind of a voluntary cooperation of people cooperating with one another to pursue their own interests, yet in the process, building a great society.

DISCUSSION

Participants: Robert McKenzie, Moderator; Michael Harrington, Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee; Milton Friedman; Russell Peterson, Governor of Delaware, 1969_1973; Robert Galvin, Chairman, Motorola, Inc.; Congressman Barber B. Conable, Jr., Ways and Means Committee, U.S. Congress

McKENZIE: It seemed to me he was saying that the golden age for America, when it was truly a land of opportunity, was the late 19th, early 20th century, no regulations, no permits, no red tape.

HARRINGTON: I would argue that the government played a decisive role in an enormous grant to the railroads in creating an America capitalist economy. And secondly, if you go back to that golden age, you find that the government constantly intervened in a rather characteristic way, it used troops against strikers. American labor history has been the most violent, bloody class struggle anywhere in the world, and the government, up until 1932, the law, the courts, the society, always sided with business, always sided against working people. Therefore, I would argue that both economically and in terms of repressing the attempts of people to assert their freedom, our government prior to the rise of the welfare state in this country was more or less owned by business.

McKENZIE: Milton Friedman.

FRIEDMAN: Michael Harrington is seeing the hole in the barn door and he’s not looking at the barn door itself. The plain fact is during the whole of that period, while government did intervene from time to time, and mostly to do harm, I agree with him that government intervention was, in the main, not a good thing; tariffs, for example. On the other hand, throughout that whole period government spending, Federal Government spending, central government spending, never was more than 3 percent of the national income. It was trivial. The land grants to the railroads were a minor factor. I’m not. I don’t approve of them. I’m not saying they were a good thing, but they were a very minor factor. One has to have a sense of proportion and that goes to the whole discussion, that I am not an anarchist. I am not in favor of eliminating government. I believe we need a government, but we need a government that sets a framework and rules within which individuals, pursuing their own objectives, can work together and cooperate together not only in economic areas.

McKENZIE: I want to hold you for a moment, though, to that golden age theory, that we were best when we were regulated least in the late 19th and early 20th century, because remember the sweatshop analogy comes out of there, when there was no attempt to restrict hours of work or to regulate working conditions. Now is that a view you accept of that period?

PETERSON: Well I think it’s necessary to contrast what’s happened in the interim. I don’t see how we can talk about that without comparing it with the interim period. Now you talked earlier about the fact that during the last fifty years we had squandered some of our inheritance of freedom, and I believe during the last fifty years we really have improved our freedom. I spent over half that time working for one of the world’s largest industrial companies, the Dupont Company, deeply involved with the launching of new ventures; and got to know the free enterprise system well, and have a very healthy respect for it. But during that interval, and particularly during the last few years when I have been more involved with government and with environmental matters, I have become convinced that our freedom was improved when the people are allowed to add to their freedom in the marketplace, the freedom to vote with their ballots in the polling place, to put some restraints on the excesses of the marketplace, particularly when you’re concerned with such things as the long-term impact on our health from the pollution of our environment, the introduction of carcinogenic materials, or the radiation of our people with nuclear products.

FRIEDMAN: What about putting some restraints on the excesses of government. Hasn’t that become an ever more serious problem? How is it that a government of the people, supposedly, does things which a very large fraction of the people would really prefer not to have done, such as overtax them, over govern them, over regulate them. I think you’re looking, again, at one side and not the other. And, of course, I agree we have to look at what’s happened in the interim. We’re better off than we were fifty years ago. Never would deny that. But we stand on the shoulders of the people that went before us, and we have to look at how much they achieved from where they started, and that was the period in which you had the tremendous influx of immigrants from abroad, millions and millions and millions of them, when you opened up a new continent, when you had achievements.

McKENZIE: Milton, are you saying, though, that there’s any sense, in which you’d rather go back to those circumstances where there are no regulations of factory work, no hours, limitations of hours worked. Do you want to return to that or do you say that was a stepping stone to where we are now?

FRIEDMAN: It depends on what you mean by circumstances. I don’t want to have to go back to using a horse and buggy instead of an automobile, but I would prefer to go back to the kinds of governmental regulations, or absence of regulations, the greater degree of freedom which was given to individuals to pursue one activity or another, which prevailed then, than which prevails now.

PETERSON: I think that, really, our industrial leaders have been dragged into the future screaming. They resisted the Child Labor Laws, they resisted Social Security, labor unions, and now the environmental movement. Once the government forced them to pay attention to those, by the voting of the people in the ballot box and in the polling place, then the industrial leaders, business leaders, paid attention to those rules and have done a good job in most cases of abiding by them.

FRIEDMAN: Excuse me.

McKENZIE: Now Bob Galvin is an industrialist, now come on, is that a fair statement?

GALVIN: Maybe the industrialists have a clearer view of history and its prospects. The most precious asset we possess is freedom. The easiest way to lose one’s freedom is to go into receivership; and I mean economic receivership. Because a receiver is a dictator. And to the degree that we employ the costs and the burdens of government that lead us in the direction of further debt, ultimate receivership, and then the political consequence of the imposition of the political dictator over the economic and the job and the living rights of the individual, maybe the industrialists can see farther down the pike as to the consequence of all this.

McKENZIE: Michael Harrington.

HARRINGTON: I just think that __ two things. One, to view freedom positively. I think people over 65 years of age in the United States today are freer now because of Medicare. I do not think that the freedom to die from the lack of medicine was a very good thing. Secondly, related to industrialists, I think that one of the startling things about American history is that when Franklin Roosevelt was saving the system from itself, the main beneficiaries were screaming bloody murder at him for being a traitor to his class. When he was in fact the salvation of that class. And I think if you, therefore, if you look at our history, I do think you find a tremendous myopia on the part of industrialists, and you find that the positive increments to our freedom, interestingly enough, have not come from the college graduates, but often from people with __ not from the best people, it’s come from working people. It’s come from poor people, it’s come from blacks and Hispanics and the like.

McKENZIE: Milton, would you reply, but then tell us why you took us to Hong Kong to prove something.

FRIEDMAN: Sure. Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with Michael Harrington, I will agree in part with what he’s just said.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Comments (0)