Government officials always think they know better how to spend money than the private individual. We have a huge government deficit today that demonstrates that the government does not know best. Below are some wise words from Milton Friedman:
“The strongest argument for free enterprise is that it prevents anybody from having too much power. Whether that person is a government official, a trade union official, or a business executive. If forces them to put up or shut up. They either have to deliver the goods, produce something that people are willing to pay for, are willing to buy, or else they have to go into a different business.”
“Free to Choose” (1980), segment 2 of 10, “The Tyranny of Control”
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.… A steady rate of monetary growth at a moderate level can provide a framework under which a country can have little inflation and much growth. It will not produce perfect stability; it will not produce heaven on earth; but it can make an important contribution to a stable economic society.
The Counter-Revolution in Monetary Theory (1970)
On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are governmental functions. We have established elaborate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in accordance with the preferences and desires of the public — after all, “taxation without representation” was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legislative function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expenditure programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law.
Here the businessman — self-selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders — is to be simultaneously legislator, executive and, jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds — all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on.
The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no “social” responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form.
The political principle that underlies the political mechanism is conformity. The individual must serve a more general social interest — whether that be determined by a church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not. Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasible.There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political mechanism altogether.
“The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” in The New York Times Magazine (13 September 1970)
So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no they do not.
Interview “Milton Friedman Responds” in Chemtech (February 1974) p. 72.
There is no place for government to prohibit consumers from buying products the effect of which will be to harm themselves.
Free to Choose (1980), segment Who protects the consumer?
“The strongest argument for free enterprise is that it prevents anybody from having too much power. Whether that person is a government official, a trade union official, or a business executive. If forces them to put up or shut up. They either have to deliver the goods, produce something that people are willing to pay for, are willing to buy, or else they have to go into a different business.”
“Free to Choose” (1980), segment 2 of 10, “The Tyranny of Control”
Governments never learn. Only people learn.
Statement made in 1980, as quoted in The Cynic’s Lexicon : A Dictionary Of Amoral Advice (1984), by Jonathon Green, p. 77
With some notable exceptions, businessmen favor free enterprise in general but are opposed to it when it comes to themselves.
Lecture “The Suicidal Impulse of the Business Community” (1983); cited in Filters Against Folly (1985) by Garrett HardinISBN 067080410X
The broader and more influential organisations of businessmen have acted to undermine the basic foundation of the free market system they purport to represent and defend.
Lecture “The Suicidal Impulse of the Business Community” (1983); cited in Filters Against Folly (1985) by Garrett Hardin
How can we have personal freedom without economic freedom? That is why I don’t understand why socialists who value individual freedoms want to take away our economic freedoms. I wanted to share this info below with you from Milton Friedman who has influenced me greatly over the last 30 plus years. It is my view that your presidential policies have been very socialistic.
Here is part one.
Volume 1 – The Power of the Market
Abstract:
Finding examples in his visits to Hong Kong, the U.S. and Scotland, Dr. Friedman says that free markets are the fundamental engines of economic progress. In free markets, individuals can go into any business they want, trade with whomever they want, buy as cheap as they can, and sell at the highest price they can get. In truly free markets, governments do not interfere with any of these privileges. Individuals are free to enter the marketplace to do business, and they, and they alone, enjoy the fruits of their successes and the consequences of their failures. In free markets, producers of goods and services respond to signals they receive from buyers in the marketplace. They key production to their understanding of what people are buying and, apparently, wish to continue to buy. Using this information, they decide what to produce and in what quantity. Competitive forces in free markets promote efficiency. Because there is free entry of new producers into the market, individual producers must keep costs down in order to price their products at competitive levels. This means the resources they consume tend to be used efficiently. If they are not, costs of production rise, selling prices go up, and the producer may not be able to sell his product because it is not priced competitively. Free markets promote voluntary cooperation among a great diversity of people. As Milton Friedman points out, even making something as simple as a pencil requires the cooperation of thousands of people largely unknown to one another. Because the pencil manufacturer needs paint, graphite, wood, glue, and other components, widely separated groups of individuals have an incentive to produce these items and ship them to the pencil plant. This cooperation is not accomplished by any government. Individual freedom and economic freedom are tightly linked. It is difficult to conceive of personal freedom existing in isolation from economic freedom. Thus, the free market system not only promotes economic progress, but also buttresses our cherished individual freedoms.
Hi, I am Arnold Schwarzenegger. I would like a moment of your time because I wanted you to know something. I wanted you to know about Dr. Milton Friedman’s TV series, Free to Choose. I truly believe that the series has changed my life. When you have such a powerful experience as that, I think you shouldn’t keep it to yourself, I wanted to share it with you.
Being free to choose for me means being free to make your own decisions; free to live your own life; pursue your own goals; chase your own rainbow; without the government breathing down on your neck or standing on your shoes. For me that meant coming here to America. Because I came from a socialistic country in which the government controls the economy. It is a place where you can hear 18 year old kids already talking about their pension. But me __ I wanted more. I wanted to be the best __ individualism like that is incompatible with socialism. So I felt I had to come to America. I had no money in my pocket, but here I had the freedom to get it. I have been able to parlay my big muscles into big business and a big movie career. Along the way I was able to save and invest and I watched America change and I noticed this __ that the more the government interfered and intervened and inserted itself into the free market, the worse the country did. But when the government stepped back and let the free enterprise system do its work, then the better we did, the more robust our economy grew, the better I did, and the better my business grew, and the more I was able to hire and help others.
Okay. So there I was in Palm Springs, waiting for Maria to get ready so we could go out for a game of mixed doubles. I started flipping through the television dial and I caught a glimpse of Nobel Prize winner, Economist Dr. Milton Friedman. I recognized him from the studying of my own degree of economics in business, but I didn’t know I was watching Free to Choose __ it knocked me out. Dr. Friedman expressed, validated and explained everything I ever thought or experienced or observed about the way the economy works. I guess I was really ready to hear it. He said, the economic race should not be arranged so that everyone ends at the finish line at the same time, but so that everyone starts at the starting line at the same time. Wow! I would like to write that one home to Austria. He said, that society that puts equality before freedom winds up with neither, but that society puts freedom before equality, we will end up with a great measure of both. Boy, if I would have come up with that one myself, I maybe wouldn’t have had to get into body building.
When I did beef up my body building, at business school, of course it started with what Thomas Jefferson believed and what Adam Smith thought, even what Milton Friedman had to say __ I would be free to choose __ it all came together. Their economic thought with my own personal experience, and in a way I felt that I had come home. I sought out Dr. Friedman and had great pleasure and privilege of meeting him and his economist wife, Rose, and we have all become friends, and now I call him Milton. Then I became a big pain in the neck about Free to Choose.
All my friends and acquaintances got the tapes and the books for Christmas after Christmas, all the way through the Reagan years when I was able to tell them all __ you see, Milton is right. And I think it’s crucial that we all keep moving in the same direction, away from socialism and to its greater freedom and opportunity. That is why I am so excited that Milton Friedman is updating Free to Choose, bringing it into the 90’s by discussing how to deal with the drug disaster, the chabain phenomenon, and of course, the miserable failure of communism. By the way, there are plans now to translate Free to Choose into the languages of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. And you know, they really need it to guide them through it __ to take the first walk toward freedom. But we need it too.
I commend to you the new television series Free to Choose and encourage you to walk into the 21st century in freedom, in opportunity and in success, with Dr. Milton Friedman.
Thanks for listening.
Friedman: Once all of this was a swamp, covered with forest. The Canarce Indians who lived here traded the 22 square miles of soggy Manhattan Island to the Dutch for $24.00 worth of cloth and trinkets. The newcomers founded a city, New Amsterdam at the edge of an empty continent. In the years that followed, it proved a magnet for millions of people from across the Atlantic; people who were driven by fear and poverty; who were attracted by the promise of freedom and plenty. They fanned out over the continent and built a new nation with their sweat, their enterprise and their vision of a better future.For the first time in their lives, many were truly free to pursue their own objectives. That freedom released the human energies which created the United States. For the immigrants who were welcomed by this statue, America was truly a land of opportunity.They poured ashore in their best clothes, eager and expectant, carrying what little they owned. They were poor, but they all had a great deal of hope. Once they arrived, they found, as my parents did, not an easy life, but a very hard life. But for many there were friends and relatives to help them get started __ to help them make a home, get a job, settle down in the new country. There were many rewards for hard work, enterprise and ability. Life was hard, but opportunity was real. There were few government programs to turn to and nobody expected them. But also, there were few rules and regulations. There were no licenses, no permits, no red tape to restrict them. They found in fact, a free market, and most of them thrived on it.Many people still come to the United States driven by the same pressures and attracted by the same promise. You can find them in places like this. It’s China Town in New York, one of the centers of the garment industry __ a place where hundreds of thousands of newcomers have had their first taste of life in the new country. The people who live and work here are like the early settlers. They want to better their lot and they are prepared to work hard to do so.Although I haven’t often been in factories like this, it’s all very familiar to me because this is exactly the same kind of a factory that my mother worked in when she came to this country for the first time at the age of 14, almost 90 years ago. And if there had not been factories like this here then at which she could have started to work and earn a little money, she wouldn’t have been able to come. And if I existed at all, I’d be a Russian or Hungarian today, instead of an American.
_____________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Mark Levin “I feel that we can do great things.” Mark is excited by the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment. He states that this would be a great thing for America to pass. He believes the Balanced Budget Amendment will help bring the nation back to it’s Constitutional roots. Mark explains what the amendment is and how it will work. In his February 1983 classic essay, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman gives his opinion on a balanced budget amendment that requires a super majority to raise taxes. Friedman states, “The purpose of the balanced-budget-and-tax-limitation amendment is to limit the government in order to free the people—this time from excessive taxation. Its passage would go a long way to remedy the defect that has developed in our budgetary process.” Part #1 3-25-2011
___________________
Dear Senator Pryor,
Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.
The best article I have ever read on the Balanced Budget Amendment was written by my favorite economist Milton Friedman. Here is the second portion below:
I have been much more surprised, and dismayed, by the criticism that has been expressed by persons who share my basic outlook about the importance of limiting government in order to preserve and expand individual freedom—for example, the editors of The Wall Street Journal and a former editor and current columnist, Vermont Royster. They do not question the objectives of the amendment, but they doubt its necessity and potential effectiveness.
Those doubts are presumably shared by many other thoughtful citizens of all shades of political opinion who are united by concern about the growth of government spending and deficits. Here, for their consideration, are my answers to the principal objections to the proposed amendment that I have come across, other than those that arise from a desire to have a still-bigger government:
1. The amendment is unnecessary. Congress and the President have the power to limit spending and balance the budget.
Taken seriously, this is an argument for scrapping most of the Constitution. Congress and the President have the power to preserve freedom of the press and of speech without the First Amendment. Does that make the First Amendment unnecessary? Not surprisingly, I know of no one who has criticized the balanced-budget amendment as unnecessary—however caustic his comments on congressional hypocrisy—who would draw the conclusion that the First Amendment should be scrapped.
It is essential to look not only at the power of Congress but at the incentives of its members—to act in such a way as to be re-elected. As Phil Gramm, a Democratic congressman from Texas, has said: Every time you vote on every issue, all the people who want the program are looking over your right shoulder and nobody’s looking over your left shoulder….In being fiscally responsible under such circumstances, we’re asking more of people than the Lord asks.”
Under present arrangements, Congress will not in fact balance the budget. Similarly, a President will not produce a balanced budget by using the kind of vetoes that would be required. The function of the amendment is to remedy the defect in our legislative procedure that distorts the will of the people as it is filtered through their representatives. The amendment process is the only effective way the public can treat the budget as a whole. That is the function of the First Amendment, as well—it treats free speech as a bundle. In its absence, Congress would consider each case “on its merits.” It is not hard to envisage the way unpopular groups and views would fare.
2. The President and Congress are guilty of hypocrisy in voting simultaneously for a large current deficit and for a constitutional amendment to prevent future deficits.
Of course, I have long believed that congressional hypocrisy and shortsightedness are the only reasons there is a ghost of a chance of getting Congress to pass an amendment limiting itself. Most members of Congress will do anything to postpone the problems they face by a couple of years—only Wall Street has a shorter perspective. If the hypocrisy did not exist, if Congress behaved “responsibly,” there would be no need for the amendment. Congress’s irresponsibility is the reason we need an amendment and at the same time the reason that there is a chance of getting one.
Hypocrisy may eventually lead to the passing of the amendment. But hypocrisy will not prevent the amendment from having important effects three or four years down the line—and from casting its shadow on events even earlier. Congress will not violate the Constitution lightly. Members of Congress will wriggle and squirm; they will seek, and no doubt find, subterfuges and evasions. But their actions will be significantly affected by the existence of the amendment. The experience of several states that have passed similar tax-limitation amendments provides ample evidence of that.
3. The amendment is substantive, not procedural and the Constitution should be limited to procedural matters. The fate of the Prohibition amendment is a cautionary tale that should give us pause in enacting substantive amendments.
If this amendment is substantive, so is the income-tax (sixteenth) amendment and so are many specific provisions of the Constitution. The income-tax amendment does not specify the rate of tax. It leaves that to Congress. Similarly, this amendment does not specify the size of the budget. It simply outlines a procedure for approving it: the same as now exists if total legislated outlays do not exceed an amount determined by prior events (the prior budget and the prior growth in national income); and by a majority of 60 percent if total legislated outlays do exceed that amount. The requirement of a supernormal majority is neither substantive nor undemocratic nor unprecedented. Witness the two-thirds majority necessary to override a presidential veto or to approve a treaty.
The prohibition amendment was incompatible with the basic aim of the Constitution, because it was not directed at limiting government. On the contrary, it limited the people and freed government to control them. The balanced-budget-tax-limitation amendment is thoroughly compatible with the basic role of the Constitution, because it seeks to improve the ability of the public to limit government.
4. The amendment is unduly rigid because it requires an annually balanced budget.
This is a misconception. Section 1 of the amendment prohibits a planned budget deficit unless it is explicitly approved by three fifths of the members of the House and Senate. It further requires the Congress and the President to “ensure that actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in [the budget] statement.” But it does not require that actual receipts equal or exceed statement receipts. A deficit that emerged because a recession produced a reduction in tax receipts would not be in violation of the amendment, provided that outlays were no greater than statement outlays. This is a sensible arrangement: outlays can be controlled more readily over short periods than receipts.
I have never been willing to support an amendment calling for an annually balanced budget. I do support this one, because it has the necessary flexibility.
5. The amendment will be ineffective because (a) it requires estimates of receipts and outlays which can be fudged; (b) its language is fuzzy; (c) the Congress can find loopholes to evade it; (d) it contains no specific provisions for enforcement.
(a) It will be possible to evade the amendment by overestimating receipts—but only once, for the first year the amendment is effective. Thereafter, section 2 of the amendment limits each year’s statement receipts to the prior year’s statement receipts plus the prior rate of increase of national income. No further estimates of budget receipts are called for. This is one of the overlooked subtleties in the amendment.
Any further fudging would have to be of the national-income estimates. That is possible but both unlikely and not easy. What matters is not the level of national income but the percentage change in national income. Alterations of the definition of national income that affect levels are likely to have far less effect on percentage changes. Moreover, making the change in income artificially high in one year will tend to make it artificially low the next. All in all, I do not believe that this is a serious problem.
(b) The language is not fuzzy. The only undefined technical term is “national income.” The amendment also refers to “receipts” and “outlays,” terms of long-standing usage in government accounting; in section 4, total receipts and total outlays are defined explicitly.
Nor is the amendment a hastily drawn gimmick designed to provide a fig leaf to hide Congress’s sins. On the contrary, it is a sophisticated product, developed over a period of years, that reflects the combined wisdom of the many persons who participated in its development.
(c) Loopholes are a more serious problem. One obvious loophole—off-budget outlays—has been closed by phrasing the amendment in terms of total outlays and defining them to include “all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.” But other, less obvious, loopholes have not been closed. Two are particularly worrisome: government credit guarantees, and mandating private expenditures for public purposes (e. g., antipollution devices on automobiles). These loopholes now exist and are now being resorted to. I wish there were some way to close them. No doubt the amendment would provide an incentive to make greater use of them. Yet I find it hard to believe that they are such attractive alternatives to direct government spending that they would render the amendment useless.
(d) No constitutional provision will be enforced unless it has widespread public support. That has certainly been demonstrated. However, if a provision does have widespread support—as public-opinion polls have clearly shown that this one does—legislators are not likely to flout it, which brings us back to the loopholes.
Equally important, legislators will find it in their own interest to confer an aura of inviolability on the amendment. This point has been impressed on me by the experience of legislators in states that have adopted amendments limiting state spending. Prior to the amendments, they had no effective defense against lobbyists urging spending programs—all of them, of course, for good purposes. Now they do. They can say: Your program is an excellent one; I would like to support it, but the total amount we can spend is fixed. To get funds for your program, we shall have to cut elsewhere. Where should we cut?” The effect is to force lobbyists to compete against one another rather than form a coalition against the general taxpayer.
That is the purpose of constitutional rules: to establish arrangements under which private interest coincides with the public interest. This amendment passes that test with flying colors.
6. The key problem is not deficits but the size of government spending.
My sentiments exactly. Which is why I have never supported an amendment directed solely at a balanced budget. I have written repeatedly that while I would prefer that the budget be balanced, I would rather have government spend $500 billion and run a deficit of $100 billion than have it spend $800 billion with a balanced budget. It matters greatly how the budget is balanced, whether by cutting spending or by raising taxes.
In my eyes, the chief merit of the amendment recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee is precisely that it does limit spending. Section 1 requires that statement outlays be no greater than statement receipts; section 2 limits the maximum increase in statement receipts; the two together effectively limit statement outlays. Moreover, if in any year Congress manages to keep statement receipts and outlays below the maximum level, the effect is to lower the maximum level for future years, thus fostering a gradual ratcheting down of spending relative to national income.
A further strength of the amendment is the provision for approving an exceptional increase in statement receipts (hence in statement outlays). The spending-limitation amendment that was drafted by the National Tax Limitation Committee required a two-thirds majority of both houses in order to justify an exceptional increase in outlays. The amendment passed by the Senate requires only “a majority of the whole number of both houses of Congress.” However, the majority must vote for an explicit tax increase. I submit that it is far easier to get a two-thirds majority of Congress to approve an exceptional increase in spending than to get a simple majority to approve an explicit increase in taxes. So this is a stronger, not a weaker, amendment.
Section 6 proposed by Senator Armstrong in the course of Senate debate, makes the debt ceiling permanent and requires a supermajority vote to raise it. That provision was approved by a narrow majority composed of a coalition of right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats—the one group demonstrating its hardcore conservatism, the other seeking to reduce the chances of adoption of the basic amendment.
I do not favor the debt-limit provision. Its objective—to strengthen pressure on Congress to balance the budget—is fine, and it may be that it would do little harm. But it seems to me both unnecessary and potentially harmful. I trust that it will be eliminated if and when the amendment is finally approved by Congress. I shall favor the amendment even if the debt-limit provision is left in, but less enthusiastically.
7. The amendment introduces a near economic theory into the Constitution.
It does nothing of the kind—unless the idea that there should be some connection between receipts and outlays is a new economic theory. The amendment does not even change the present budget process, if Congress enacts a balanced budget that rises by no greater a percentage than does national income. But it does significantly stiffen the requirement for passing a budget that is in deficit or for raising the fraction of our income spent on our behalf by the government.
The amendment recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee deserves the wholehearted backing of every believer in a limited government and maximum freedom for the individual.
Milton Friedman received the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976. He is the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago and a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. I also got a lot out of the words by Gary Becker below.
Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
Hello, I am Linda Chavez and welcome to Free to Choose. Joining Dr. Friedman for a discussion of the failure of socialism are Gary Becker from the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Bowles, I think we can all agree that socialism has failed Eastern Europe. Dr. Friedman believes that the path out of that is the free market and I think he thinks there are lessons for the United States. What do you think?
Bowles: The homeless people are homeless because they are poor and they are out of work. They are not homeless because of rent control.
Friedman: I beg your pardon. All of them aren’t. Of course there are some like that, but the existence of rent control has certainly increased the number of homeless.
Becker: Many people are homeless because they are mentally ill. But the homeless is a tiny fraction. Housing policy in the United States should not be oriented around the homeless because that is a tiny part of the problem in any major city, and certainly outside of major cities. If you look at the bulk of housing in the United States, I see no evidence that it cannot be adequately provided by the private sector.
Bowles: Let’s talk about incentives because I know both of you like to talk about incentives a lot. I think incentives are terribly important. Milton says in the show, and I agree with him, that we have to choose between taking orders from the top down, or incentives at the bottom. Now Milton’s idea of how do you get the incentives down at the bottom is essentially a view of an economy in which individuals, through their ownership of property, can own the results of their hard work and their innovation. It is a great idea. It doesn’t exist anywhere and it can’t exist. When I read your stuff Milton and when I watch you on TV, I think, you know, Milton has this idea of, Charlie Brown and Linus are going to have a lemonade stand and Lucy is going to have another lemonade stand and that is your idea of capitalism. But that is a myth. That is not what capitalism is. We don’t have thousands and millions of little firms competing on a level playing field. We have giant industrial corporations that use their power to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of others. That is what you have to be able to deal with you if you want to be relevant to the modern world. That is what the countries that I talked about, Sweden, Korea, Norway, Japan, are very good at doing __ dealing with the problem of economic power so that the power of those institutions can be used by and large for public good. If you ignore them with this lemonade stand capitalism myth, you are simply giving those powerful spenders of wealth and affluence free rein.
Friedman: Gary, it is a strange thing that not a single one of the countries that you have described has a standard of living as high as that of the United States with respect to the bulk of its population.
Bowles: Yes and the United States got its standard of living through precisely the policies that you have opposed such as protecting our industrial base from . . . . . .
Becker: I would be very happy to go back to the 19th century U.S. policy. It was a tiny part. The government, sure they did some things, but as a tiny part of the economy and let’s go back to a resource that went through the government at that time what was it? Ten percent of the maximum. The largest employer of the government was the postal system. That is the main thing the government was doing. Some tariff policies probably hurt us and a few other activities. Let me come back to the other issue raised then. There are millions and millions of companies in the United States. It is true that in some sectors these are very large companies like in manufacturing. But what I think has happened, particularly in the modern world, is these large companies are now having to compete with large countries from elsewhere. It is not capitalism. It is the political sector that is limiting that competition, partly at the behest of these companies, but also at the behest of the employees of these companies to limit the competition from abroad, but most industries, it would be hard put for you to argue now that even the large companies aren’t facing significant competition in the United States markets, not only from domestic companies, but from large companies based abroad.
Bowles: Oh, I agree with that completely. But what I am concerned about is this. If you work at General Motors or IBM and you are a secretary or you are a production worker, what you are getting there is you are getting orders from the top down. You don’t own your work. You don’t own the results of your work. When you talk about incentives from the bottom, if you want to get incentives from the bottom, you have to get the people who work at the bottom to own the results of their work and to have a say in how their work is going to be used. You can do that if you . . . like employee ownership and employee control. That is what made Wierton Steel from almost bankruptcy to one of the most successful steel companies in the United States __ employee ownership and control. The same with Columbia Aluminum, one of the most efficient aluminum companies in the United States. It went from shutdown to being a very successful company through employee ownership and employee control over their production processes. That is what I call putting incentives at the bottom where they belong, but you never advocate that.
Becker: I am not against employee ownership, but you have to permit employee ownership to compete on a level playing field against other forms. We permitted that in the United States, up until 1975, when you had trivial employee ownership in the United States. That to me suggests that workers didn’t want it.
Chavez: Dr. Friedman, who owns companies now? Are these in the hands of a small number of people or is it stockholders?
Friedman: No, it is the stockholders who own it and a very large fraction of that is owned in pension plans which are for the benefit of the employees. But of course, Gary is right, what produced the spate of employee ownership was government subsidy through ESOP’s since 1975.
Friedman: I think that is disgraceful.
Becker: That is the only reason you have gotten the growth of employee ownership in the United States. We have 5,000 or 6,000 employee owned companies now in the United States, and you take away these subsidies and they think that would go down to 1,000 or so, and let them be there, that is fine. Let the market determine which form is most desired and which form is most efficient.
Chavez: Gentlemen, obviously we have not exhausted this subject, but we are out of time. Thank you for watching Free to Choose. Next week we will be discussing the failure of our schools. We send our kids to school hoping that they will receive something that will benefit them in the future for when they go out here and compete in the job market. Unfortunately, none of that is taking place out of Hyde Park.
____________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Friedman: Once all of this was a swamp, covered with forest. The Canarce Indians who lived here traded the 22 square miles of soggy Manhattan Island to the Dutch for $24.00 worth of cloth and trinkets. The newcomers founded a city, New Amsterdam at the edge of an empty continent. In the years that followed, it proved a magnet for millions of people from across the Atlantic; people who were driven by fear and poverty; who were attracted by the promise of freedom and plenty. They fanned out over the continent and built a new nation with their sweat, their enterprise and their vision of a better future.
For the first time in their lives, many were truly free to pursue their own objectives. That freedom released the human energies which created the United States. For the immigrants who were welcomed by this statue, America was truly a land of opportunity.
They poured ashore in their best clothes, eager and expectant, carrying what little they owned. They were poor, but they all had a great deal of hope. Once they arrived, they found, as my parents did, not an easy life, but a very hard life. But for many there were friends and relatives to help them get started __ to help them make a home, get a job, settle down in the new country. There were many rewards for hard work, enterprise and ability. Life was hard, but opportunity was real. There were few government programs to turn to and nobody expected them. But also, there were few rules and regulations. There were no licenses, no permits, no red tape to restrict them. They found in fact, a free market, and most of them thrived on it.
Many people still come to the United States driven by the same pressures and attracted by the same promise. You can find them in places like this. It’s China Town in New York, one of the centers of the garment industry __ a place where hundreds of thousands of newcomers have had their first taste of life in the new country. The people who live and work here are like the early settlers. They want to better their lot and they are prepared to work hard to do so.
Although I haven’t often been in factories like this, it’s all very familiar to me because this is exactly the same kind of a factory that my mother worked in when she came to this country for the first time at the age of 14, almost 90 years ago. And if there had not been factories like this here then at which she could have started to work and earn a little money, she wouldn’t have been able to come. And if I existed at all, I’d be a Russian or Hungarian today, instead of an American. Of course she didn’t stay here a long time, she stayed here while she learned the language, while she developed some feeling for the country, and gradually she was able to make a better life for herself.
Similarly, the people who are here now, they are like my mother. Most of the immigrants from the distant countries __ they came here because they liked it here better and had more opportunities. A place like this gives them a chance to get started. They are not going to stay here very long or forever. On the contrary, they and their children will make a better life for themselves as they take advantage of the opportunities that a free market provides to them.
The irony is that this place violates many of the standards that we now regard as every worker’s right. It is poorly ventilated, it is overcrowded, the workers accept less than union rate __ it breaks every rule in the book. But if it were closed down, who would benefit? Certainly not the people here. Their life may seem pretty tough compared to our own, but that is only because our parents or grandparents went through that stage for us. We have been able to start at a higher point.
Frank Visalli’s father was 12 years old when he arrived all alone in the United States. He had come from Sicily. That was 53 years ago. Frank is a successful dentist with a wife and family. They live in Lexington, Massachusetts. There is no doubt in Frank’s mind what freedom combined with opportunity meant to his father and then to him, or what his Italian grandparents would think if they could see how he lives now.
Frank Visalli: They would not believe what they would see __ that a person could immigrate from a small island and make such success out of their life because to them they were mostly related to the fields, working in the field as a peasant. My father came over, he made something for himself and then he tried to build a family structure. Whatever he did was for his family. It was for a better life for his family. And I can always remember him telling me that the number one thing in life is that you should get an education to become a professional person.
Friedman: The Visalli family, like all of us who live in the United States today, owe much to the climate of freedom we inherited from the founders of our country. The climate that gave full scope to the poor from other lands who came here and were able to make better lives for themselves and their children.
But in the past 50 years, we’ve been squandering that inheritance by allowing government to control more and more of our lives, instead of relying on ourselves. We need to rediscover the old truths that the immigrants knew in their bones; what economic freedom is and the role it plays in preserving personal freedom.
That’s why I came here to the South China Sea. It’s a place where there is an almost laboratory experiment in what happens when government is limited to its proper function and leaves people free to pursue their own objectives. If you want to see how the free market really works this is the place to come. Hong Kong, a place with hardly any natural resources. About the only one you can name is a great harbor, yet the absence of natural resources hasn’t prevented rapid economic development. Ships from all nations come here to trade because there are no duties, no tariffs on imports or exports. The power of the free market has enabled the industrious people of Hong Kong to transform what was once barren rock into one of the most thriving and successful places in Asia.
If you enjoyed that then take a look at the other segments:
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
_________________________ Pt3 Nowadays there’s a considerable amount of traffic at this border. People cross a little more freely than they use to. Many people from Hong Kong trade in China and the market has helped bring the two countries closer together, but the barriers between them are still very real. On this side […]
Aside from its harbor, the only other important resource of Hong Kong is people __ over 4_ million of them. Like America a century ago, Hong Kong in the past few decades has been a haven for people who sought the freedom to make the most of their own abilities. Many of them are […]
“FREE TO CHOOSE” 1: The Power of the Market (Milton Friedman) Free to Choose ^ | 1980 | Milton Friedman Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 4:20:46 PM by Choose Ye This Day FREE TO CHOOSE: The Power of the Market Friedman: Once all of this was a swamp, covered with forest. The Canarce Indians […]
Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. Pay attention to the words of Gary Becker too. He is very good.
Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
Hello, I am Linda Chavez and welcome to Free to Choose. Joining Dr. Friedman for a discussion of the failure of socialism are Gary Becker from the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Bowles, I think we can all agree that socialism has failed Eastern Europe. Dr. Friedman believes that the path out of that is the free market and I think he thinks there are lessons for the United States.
Chavez: I would like to bring this discussion back to the United States for a moment. What about socialism in the United States. There has been one area where we have tried to redistribute wealth. We have done that through our welfare policies and social security. Has that worked?
Friedman: For some people, it benefited, but taken as a whole, I think it has been a failure.
Becker: I agree with that. I think the big problem in the United States has been, of course, some of the welfare programs have been successful. But by trying to do too many things, the government is no longer doing the things that it should be doing. We all agree there are many things government should be doing. I agree with Milton __ he is a strong man to be say this is an issue between no government and 100% government. The question is what are the tasks that government should be doing. I believe the tasks are, of course, defense against outside aggression, internal protection, some infrastructure, protection of the people can’t make it. In every one of these areas, we are not doing very well. I think we are not doing well mainly because we are trying to do a lot of things we shouldn’t be doing. They can’t do all of them.
Chavez: I couldn’t help but think, Dr. Bowles, as I watched that film that the public housing area that we saw in Eastern Europe and the problems that we have here in the United States. Aren’t there some lessons to be learned?
Bowles: There is absolutely no reason why housing shouldn’t be privately owned. That does not mean that the government has no role in housing. It seems to me that housing is precisely something that ought to be a matter of private property. But we also know, from the experience of this country, that the market itself doesn’t provide housing that the rest of the public thinks is adequate for the vast majority of poor people in this country. Now that doesn’t mean it has to be done by government building the houses, but it certainly does mean that something has to be done or we are going to have the kind of homeless crisis that we have in this country and they are getting one in Eastern Europe too.
Becker: The homeless crisis is a tiny fraction of the population of the United States. Let’s not make that a major part of the housing problem in the United States. I am not at all convinced that there is any evidence suggesting that the private system cannot provide adequate housing. I think there is a good case to be made that there are poor people in this country and the government obviously has to help them out. We all agree on that. But should they be doing it by building housing or by giving them income and permitting them to spend as they see fit. I see no evidence from the U.S. or any other country who were better off when then government takes a major role in housing or any of these other particular activities that allocate resources.
Friedman: What role has been played in the difficulty of getting housing by government interventions? By rent control? By excessive building code regulations, many of which are designed to protect the interests of special groups. Government played a very large role.
______________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. Also pay attention to the comments of Gary Becker who was one of Milton’s students.
Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
DISCUSSIONHello, I am Linda Chavez and welcome to Free to Choose. Joining Dr. Friedman for a discussion of the failure of socialism are Gary Becker from the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Bowles, I think we can all agree that socialism has failed Eastern Europe. Dr. Friedman believes that the path out of that is the free market and I think he thinks there are lessons for the United States. What do you think?Chavez: I would like to bring this discussion back to the United States for a moment. What about socialism in the United States. There has been one area where we have tried to redistribute wealth. We have done that through our welfare policies and social security. Has that worked?
Bowles: Well, there is much to celebrate in Eastern Europe __ not only the elimination of dictatorial rule. I go back on that a long time. I was in the Soviet Union in the late 50’s (1958 and 1959) as a musician and I met many Russian musicians and made friends with a lot of Russian people who found themselves harassed and victimized by the police. In fact, my own musical group was prevented from singing a couple of times by the police. That is all on the way out and I hope it is gone for good. Equally welcome is the end of this myth of a centrally planned society. That is gone too and I hope that basically the lesson is learned. But Milton seems to think that we have to choose between either a centrally planned society or a society in which we have markets which are basically unregulated. So the choice is really between all or nothing.
I don’t think that is the choice. I think what Milton is posing for us is a model which is as unrealistic as a centrally planned model. It is outdated, it won’t work, it is extreme, and I think it is undemocratic. I think that we have choices in between, what Milton called the third way, a way that he said wouldn’t work, has been shown to work around the world. I think that Eastern Europe would be very ill-advised to take Milton’s advise on this. Yet, the last time anybody took Milton’s advise on economic policy was Ronald Reagan and Ronald Reagan has put the U.S. economy into a situation where it can’t pay its bills and is facing mounting economic instability and difficulties.
Chavez: Dr. Friedman, what about this midway path?
Friedman: First of all, I utterly reject what Sam says about the results of Ronald Reagan’s changes. We had a decade of extraordinary growth, increased employment in which inflation was brought down sharply. Ronald Reagan came into office at a period of very high inflation, and so on. But this program is not about the Reagan administration. This program is about Eastern Europe and I want to go to Eastern Europe.
I believe Sam is completely wrong in saying that the model I propose is outdated. I believe that what he calls obsolete is something very different. You have had the third way __ you have had it in the United States; you have had it in Sweden; you have had it in Britain; you’ve had it elsewhere. In every case it has been built on the foundation of a long period of what I call the first way. The United States had 150 years of essentially a free private market before it launched on this period of the welfare state. The same thing was true in Britain, the same thing was true in Sweden. I believe he will find it very difficult to site any example of a country which started from a very low level and immediately adopted that combination of policies.
Becker: Let me add something on that. I think the lesson that we learned from what happened in Eastern Europe goes beyond simply that central planning doesn’t work. I think we all agree that it doesn’t work. But it is more than that __ it is the role of private property in the system and the incentives provided by private property.
I don’t know what socialism means anymore, but I remember when I was in Poland I asked the head of the ideology department is private property consistent with socialism? He said, it may be. Then I asked him, well what is the difference between socialism and capitalism. His answer was, we are still working on that. I think what we have seen is a rejection of the ideas associated with traditional socialism which are suppression of private property, government ownership of property, and so on.
Now, how far should we move in the other direction? I think that is question you are asking Sam, and is there a middle way. I think the middle ways that have been successful have all been largely reliant on private property, private ownership, private incentives. The difficult question is one that Milton raised in the documentary. How far can you redistribute income and make it consistent with effective incentives?
I don’t think we know the boundary point, whether 30% of the income being redistributed is too much, 40%, 50% __ my own feeling is that we have gone much too far in Sweden and some of the other Scandinavian countries, and they are beginning to step back from this. They are lowering maximum tax rates to 50% now __ they were up to 80%. So I think there is a third way, but that third way is going to be a lot closer to unregulated market than toward a socialist organization of resources and a suppression of private property.
Bowles: Let’s get back to the particulars though. You talk about Sweden and you talk about the third way failing, and Milton says nobody has ever really gotten rich on the third way __ they have only benefited from that. Let’s talk about the United States. The period you described included a very long period in which the United States was a highly protectionist country in which our industrial base was developed from Alexander Hamilton on for some time, and then during the late 19th and early 20th century. To call that a free market solution would be against everything you have taught. Or, if one wants to go back into the 19th century, the huge subsidies of the railroads were, of course, an intervention in the market.
In the case of England that you talk about, the same is true. The role of the British Navy and for example the Parliament in actually establishing the private property which is what you favor. This was done by a government intervention. We talk about the other cases. Talk about Sweden or about Korea. These are two countries which I think are justly admired for their economic performance. Both countries have income distributions far more equal than the United States.
In Sweden, over the half the GNP is taxed. Now, people in this country would say that obviously they have gone too far. But let’s look at the test of the market. Sweden and Korea have been defeating the United States in world markets. Exports have grown five percent per year during the Reagan/Bush years in Sweden. In the United States, they have grown one percent per year. In Korea we know they have grown much better. If you want to go on to Norway, where much of the investing is done by the government, they have grown their exports even faster than Sweden. Meanwhile, we can’t compete in world markets.
So the lesson of these countries is if you look at the facts Milton, a combination of government regulation and the market works. I agree with Gary. I think private property is extremely important because the incentives associated with owning the results of your work is essential. But private property does not mean that we have to let the market go unregulated and all the evidence says that the countries that are beating us in the world market today don’t do it. They are not that dumb. Japan doesn’t do it; Korea doesn’t do it; Sweden doesn’t do it.
Friedman: Let’s not throw straw men around. Obviously I am not in favor of no government. Government has some very important roles to play. Those are very limited. You take the case of the United States during the 19th century and of Britain in the 19th century. At the time of Queen Victoria’s jubilee in 1899, total government spending in Britain was 10% of the national income. Up until 1929 in the United States, except for periods of great war, total government spending in the United States was about 10% of national income. Now that is a very far cry from a government which spends over half of the national income . . . . and a little less than half in the United States.
Bowles: You are opposed to capital controls. You are opposed to telling people they can’t move their money internationally. That is what Korea does. You are opposed to . . .
Friedman: I think Korea makes a mistake by doing it.
Bowles: Korea has beaten us by exactly the policies you are posing.
Friedman: So has Hong Kong. Hong Kong has beaten us by the policies I am proposing.
Bowles: . . . if Korea is not a middle way and if Sweden is not a middle way, then I would like to know what you call it.
Becker: Korea is a lot closer to a market-oriented economy than any of the economies we have been talking about.
Bowles: The government approves the heads of the banks in Korea. They have nationalized their steel industry and have one of the most efficient plants in the world at Palhang. If you call that a private economy . . .
Becker: What fraction of resources in Korea goes through the government?
Bowles: A tremendous fraction if you take account of the fact that the banks are centrally run and they control the credit allocations there and they don’t let people take their money out of the . . .
_____________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose” is excellent and I would recommend the book highly too. I read it and watched the series in 1980 and it had a huge impact on me. Back in 2004 I saw Milton Friedman give an interview in which he said something that I think really summed up most of views in simple statement and here it is:
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
The unions might be good for the people who are in the unions but it doesn’t do a thing for the people who are unemployed. Because the union keeps down the number of jobs, it doesn’t do a thing for them.
Interview with Brian Lamb, In Depth Book TV (2000)
The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I’m not sure that I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.
Financial Times [UK] (7 June 2003)
I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, “How do you hold down government spending?” Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
Fox News interview (May 2004)
I am a libertarian with a small “l” and a Republican with a capital “R”.And I am a Republican with a capital “R” on grounds of expediency, not on principle.
Keynes was a great economist. In every discipline, progress comes from people who make hypotheses, most of which turn out to be wrong, but all of which ultimately point to the right answer. Now Keynes, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,set forth a hypothesis which was a beautiful one, and it really altered the shape of economics. But it turned out that it was a wrong hypothesis. That doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a great man!
Thanks to economists, all of us, from the days of Adam Smith and before right down to the present, tariffs are perhaps one tenth of one percent lower than they otherwise would have been. … And because of our efforts, we have earned our salaries ten-thousand fold.
If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven’t cut taxes enough.
As quoted in “Milton Friedman’s Last Lunch” at Forbes.com (11 December 2006)
The true test of any scholar’s work is not what his contemporaries say, but what happens to his work in the next 25 or 50 years.And the thing that I will really be proud of is if some of the work I have done is still cited in the text books long after I am gone.
Every Friday you need to click on www.theDailyHatch.org if you would like to see a video clip of Milton Friedman as he shares his common sense conservative economic views. Many of his articles are posted too. I remember growing up and reading those great articles every week in Newsweek. They are just as relevant today as they were then.
So many points brought up by liberals sound so good at first but really are easy to answer logically. Take the example below.
I remember like yesterday when I saw Milton Friedman on the Phil Donahue Show. Donahue had thrown up one of those liberal accusations against the free enterprise system. Below is the exchange that I saw that day:
Phil Donahue: When you see around the globe, the mal-distribution of wealth, a desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries. When you see so few “haves” and so many “have-nots.” When you see the greed and the concentration of power. Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?
Milton Friedman: Well first of all tell me is there some society you know that doesn’t run on Greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.
The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.
In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about – the only cases in recorded history – are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.
If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system…
Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the Communist commissar rewarded virtue? You think a Hitler rewarded virtue? You think – excuse me – if you’ll pardon me – do you think American Presidents reward virtue ?
Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout ?
Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest ? You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us ? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.
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 __________________ 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 […]
Milton Friedman: Life and ideas – Part 05 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 13) Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday. Here is another tribute below: Sheldon […]
Milton Friedman on the Causes of Inflation (“Friedman Friday” Part 4) FRIEDMAN FRIDAY APPEARS EVERY FRIDAY AND IS HONOR OF THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST MILTON FRIEDMAN Famous Friedman Quotes By John Beagle Milton Friedman – University of Chicago School of Economics Professor As I read the comments by Milton Friedman, I can’t help but think […]
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY APPEARS EVERY FRIDAY AND IS HONOR OF THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST MILTON FRIEDMAN. The Power Of Choice By John Beagle An interesting compilation of Milton Freeman as an economic freedom philosopher. Milton makes the case for economic freedom as a precondition for political freedom. The title of this video, The Power of Choice […]
Happy Birthday, Milton Friedman! Author: Jonathan Wood Milton Friedman, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, would have turned 99 on Sunday. Though few individuals have been as deserving of praise, Milton Friedman was “much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas” than the person having them. In that spirit, we […]
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Speakers at the First Richmond Tea Party, October 8-9, 2010 John Fund John Fund is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal and its OpinionJournal.com and an on-air contributor to 24-hour cable news networks CNBC and MSNBC. He is the […]
Dallas Fed president and CEO Richard W. Fisher sat down with economist Milton Friedman on October 19, 2005, as part of ongoing discussions with the Nobel Prize winner. In this clip, Friedman argues for a reduction in government spending. I really wish that Senator Pryor would see the wisdom of supporting the Balanced Budget amendment. […]
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few […]
Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. It is very clear from history that socialism fails when it burdens people with all the waste and disincentives to work hard.
Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
Here is another real success story, this time in Czechoslovakia. Martin was a rock musician. Today he makes documentary films. Some years ago, he did a concert tour of the United States and brought back secondhand recording equipment. The communist government let him bring it back, after paying a hefty import tax, because he said he wanted to record folk music __ something the government was not doing and did not plan to do.
In the past year, since things have opened up, his business has exploded. Along with music and films, he now duplicates video cassettes. He also makes audio cassettes for other Czech producers and has devised his own English language course on tape. He is on his way and many more will follow if the government just gets out of their way. You just can’t keep good people like that down.
The guests at this party aren’t much interested in self-driving entrepreneurs like Martin. High powered business executives from North America and West Europe __ they are interested in bigger game. They are here to do business and make good profits for their firms. They’ll do it by arranging joint ventures between their western companies and government enterprises. To succeed, they have to get on the right side of the politicians and the bureaucrats who are in charge. It is large scale lobbying, very much in the western manner. The danger is that in the process, local government bureaucrats and big foreign business will end up freezing out local entrepreneurs.
Friedman: The assets of Hungary belong to the people of Hungary. I do not believe they should be sold. You are a citizen of Hungary, who owns the state enterprises?
Unknown: Okay, the society as a whole.
Friedman: Not the society, the people.
Unknown: Well, give it to the people.
Friedman: In finance ministries all over Eastern Europe, the talk is all about privatization, but rhetoric is one thing __ action sometimes very different.
One example is in Prague where Vacla Klouse, the finance minister, is desperately trying to free the Czech economy.
Vacla Klouse: The people who were the reformers at that time were done after the Russian invasion, they were fired from their jobs and they return to politics with their own extremely obsolete ideas, and now they are trying . . .
Friedman: But he is up against political planners that aren’t ready to give up control. They are all anticommunists, all in favor of markets, but many are still beguiled by the idea of market socialism. A third way between capitalism and socialism, Klouse and I believe that is a mirage __ that a third way will take Czechoslovakia straight to the third world. It must either move directly to a pure free market, or it will get stuck just as Yugoslavia has.
Klouse: . . . I think intellectuals tend to underestimate the intelligence of the ordinary people . . .
Friedman: Poland and Hungary have exactly the same problem. Some, like Klouse, want to move to free markets right away. Others still hanker after socialist control of the markets.
Klouse: . . . use the word naive citizens. They are the interventionist economies and the other, so this is my speech in the parliament . . . . . .
Friedman: Political power is limited, but economic power is not limited and you can have, if you have one millionaire, you can have another millionaire, another millionaire, without anybody else being worse off. In fact, everybody else will be better off. It seems to me again, the people understand that. I can’t believe that your ordinary people here don’t. They know overnight you can make a change if you could only get the government off the back of the people.
Where are we headed __ we are heading all the way up here __ we’ll get there. Let’s not get any more gas than we need to. What is it? It is about $1.00 a liter which makes it about $4.00 a gallon of gas.
In these countries, the hardest problem is to transform their heavy industries. This is Novahoota, a vast collection of steel mills in Poland and a disaster in every sense. It is inefficient, costly, and above all, a major polluter. The best thing to do with places like this would be to bulldoze them, but that is almost impossible. They are too well shielded by special interests: the unions, the bureaucrats, and all the other political interests on the fringes.
The communists socialize the means of production. They tried to run everything from the center. It didn’t work. It was a mess and a failure. We in the United States, on the other hand, have been socializing the fruits of production. That is, the government has been taking money from some people, the people who produce the goods and services, and giving it to other people who do not produce goods and services. The end result is likely to be the same loss of incentive and organization if we carry it too far. That is one lesson we should learn from these countries.
A year ago, the cornucopia of fruits and vegetables and other things in this street market were simply not obtainable. It is one of the first signs of the flowering of enterprise under the new regime. This market is in Krakow, Poland. Goods are readily available now, only because the government eliminated price controls allowing the market to set the prices. Like a miracle, overnight the stalls had goods for sale. This gentleman sells bulbs and seeds. He is happy in the market, but many traders would like to set up in stores and develop on a larger scale. At the moment, they can’t. The stores are all owned by the state. The traders are stymied unless and until the stores become private property. When they do, the market will get another boost.
This youngster is 16. He is still in high school, but this is Saturday and he is in the market selling jeans from Thailand, making a little money for himself. He is studying to be a gardener. But when I asked him what he was going to do when he left school, he had no hesitation __ he was going to be a businessman. There is the hope of Poland.
Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state need to be gotten into the hands of the private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values. The problem is how to do it. Now that you have some degree of political freedom, there is an awful fight going on about who is going to get what share of the total pie. Everybody wants a little bigger piece. It is a political mine field, but unless that mine field can be gotten through, the game is up. It will be a failure. If it can be gotten through, then you will have an opportunity for these resources to be used the right way for the right things.
We in the West know only too well how hard it is to get the government out of something once they have been in it. Here in Poland they have been in it for 50 years and in a much bigger way than the United States. So they have a real job on their hands.
It would be silly of us, on the basis of a brief trip, to try to judge how successful these countries will be in doing what no country has yet been able to do __ transform a totalitarian state into a prosperous, free society. If this experiment is successful, it will not only transform Eastern Europe __ it will also offer an invaluable blueprint for the economic development of many poor countries.
You know, nothing is more striking than the wide differences in the standard of life of people who live in different parts of the world. Why? Not because of race or religion or culture or natural resources. After all, the Chinese who live in Hong Kong and in Taiwan are of the same race and background as those who live in Red China, yet their standards of living are vastly different. The same thing is true of East Germany and West Germany; of South Korea and North Korea; of Japan before the major restoration and Japan after the major restoration. The real explanation are the economic institutions that they adopt __free private markets versus central planning.
The countries of Eastern Europe have finally overthrown their communist masters who foisted central control on them. They have the rare opportunity to write on a clean slate; to create the institutions of private property and free markets that are the only ones that have ever achieved widespread prosperity and human freedom. We in the United States, on the basis of our experience of the last 10 years, know how hard it is to cut a government down to size. We hope they succeed better than we did. If they do, we will learn as much from them as they have learned from our example.
_______________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
The Daily Hatch 