34 Burst results for "Milton Friedman"

Conservatism and Intellect Correlation

Dennis Prager Podcasts

01:00 min | Last month

Conservatism and Intellect Correlation

"Oh, I was reading to a friend the other day who doesn't know. I'm Tom is so anything pertaining to America. Ask them name one conservative thinker. They'll say Ben Shapiro. Or you. But I'll say, I mean, obviously you guys are thinkers as much as you are talk show host, but I'll say someone outside of the media realm. Milton Friedman, for instance, could people probably they could name Milton Friedman. Right. Or Heather McDonald. Barry Goldwater. Tom sol, yeah. No, they can't. But we know all of theirs. Right. But isn't that point that it's a tradeoff? Isn't that just obvious? Again, I'm so sorry if this is not if this is coming off and it should be obvious when you hear it. Let's put it that way. It took a Tom soul to make that line. Right. But once you hear it, you should, oh, yeah, of course, that's true. Right.

Ben Shapiro Milton Friedman Heather Mcdonald Tom Sol TOM Barry Goldwater America
Trish Looks Back at the Stock Market Crash of 1929

The Trish Regan Show

02:01 min | Last month

Trish Looks Back at the Stock Market Crash of 1929

"Well, interestingly enough. As you went through the years prior to the crash of 1929, you know, those really happy giddy days, 1920s, think The Great Gatsby and all that. Well, that was all about a lot of money in the system. Times were good and the fed was printing. And then, in 1929, is the bottom sort of fell out from under, and everybody came up with this realization that the party just couldn't continue indefinitely. You had a course that really, really bad market day. The great crash, October 24th, 1929, what do you know? We just passed that anniversary known as black Thursday. It was the day the largest sell off of shares in U.S. history on a percentage basis. So what did the Federal Reserve bankers think was worthwhile to do at that time? Take money out of circulation. Like that made sense, right? The market's plunging. You're going into a major economic challenge. Really, that was the beginning of The Great Depression, and these brilliant academics over at the Central Bank, they decide to take money out of circulation, something that Milton Friedman was very famous for criticizing. In fact, some have also argued, and I'm of this belief that the Federal Reserve actually contributed to having that big market sell off back on October, October 24th, 1929. Because they were the ones that were printing all the money, making everything. So easy, right? Easy, money's not easy. Earning money is not easy. Money doesn't grow on trees. And yet, when you create an environment where you print so much money, putting that much Cass into the system, things may seem good for a little while, but eventually going to pay the price. And that's exactly what happened in 1929. So these brilliant, you know, academics decided, well, we're going to take all the money out, right? Because all that money supply that, that created the problem. So now we're just going to take it out. And so they decreased the M two, the money supply. Significantly massively, and by taking all that money out of circulation, they ensured an even greater crisis. So

FED Milton Friedman Central Bank Depression U.S. Cass
"milton friedman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

01:40 min | Last month

"milton friedman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Friedman on inflation. We're going to play it last week. But again, these seems like they seem like common sense ideas. The fact that we have to debate them and argue them with deranged leftist proof should prove to you conclusively that they live in an alternate reality and it's really hard to pull people out of it. Listen, call it what you want. I know it's going to incite some emotions, a culture, whatever. I don't think it helps because even though I've been guilty of it before, because it just obviously negative imagery. But I mean it in a very serious kind of trying to strip the emotion out of it way. How do you argue with someone who's been convinced by their parents at 6 plus 6 equals 17? By their parents, their teachers who affirm it, their graduate school teachers and their entertainment community, they all live in the same what we call woke or liberal bubble where the same ridiculous ideas are affirmed over and over again. Modern monetary theorists, people who are over credentialed that you can print money and nothing's gonna happen. That's why that Jon Stewart clip I opened up the show when it's on my podcast if you missed it. Him seeming so puzzled by an actual economist explaining to him the basics of inflation. That's why he seems so confused. He exists in this liberal ecosystem where silly ideas like, no, you could print money without consequence, governments can do it. It's no problem. Those ideas are allowed to fester because they're never challenged. Here's Milton Friedman on inflation. Whenever you want to, you want to hear common sense and straight talk, the late great Milton Friedman, and any time his soul video is still with us, thankfully, on inflation I'll explain it to you in a common sense matter here. Listen to this. Inflation is the most destructive disease known to modern societies. There is

Friedman Jon Stewart Milton Friedman
"milton friedman" Discussed on The Café Bitcoin Podcast

The Café Bitcoin Podcast

03:33 min | Last month

"milton friedman" Discussed on The Café Bitcoin Podcast

"It makes me think of, I think it was AOC who was like, yeah, I forget what exactly I'm paraphrasing, but I guess the meme is, she's like, yeah, I get my food from the grocery store and she doesn't realize that that food doesn't appear magically in the grocery store. It comes from someplace, right? It comes from a farm. Somebody had to do work, there's a lot involved. And same is true. So, you know, if it was as simple as just vacuuming these nodules off the ocean floor, well, the market would figure that out, wouldn't it? If it was as simple as flying to an asteroid and just mining the asteroid, the market would figure that out, wouldn't it? So my point is, it's not costless. There's a huge cost. I mean, Bitcoin miners know this more than anybody. All right. Moving on. Next headline. 63% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, including nearly half of 6 figure earners. It's brutal. As of September, 63% of Americans, according to a recent LendingClub report, it near the 64% historic high hit in March a year ago, the number of adults who felt strained was closer to 57%, consumers are not able to keep up with the pace of inflation. And being employed is no longer enough for the everyday American wage growth has been adequate. Inadequate compared to inflation, leaving more consumers than ever with little to nothing left over after managing monthly expenses. So that's the thing about inflation that's just, it's the most brutal part of inflation, Milton Friedman, you should talk about this where it's just, it's the thing that affects the lower half of the social economic ladder the worst. Penalizes the people on the lowest rungs of the social economic ladder, the worst. And it's just, it's a very nasty thing. The human beings have to deal with right now, which is why we Bitcoin. I don't know, my grocery bills have gone up quite a bit. I'm sure you guys have seen it. You can see him messing around with it too. My wife and I have been tracking it where I say tracking, but noticing is a better word where we've been looking at products week over week and you can see the store like there was almost like a feeling and I know that it doesn't, I mean, it's more complicated than this. I know that multiple factors go into the pricing of these goods in the market and whatever at the store. But the gut reaction, like the feeling as just a user there at the store, the customer. And you're saying, wow, they're really just like testing out these prices now to see what people will pay. They raise it really high on one week on something and you're going like, wow, why is there charging this much for orange juice? And then all of a sudden, the next week, you can almost see like they realize that they've reached a limit. And so they pull it back a little bit. But again, I know that's not the way that it works. Just cut and dry, but it feels like that. It feels like they're just testing to try to find out what are we willing to pay in this crazy new paradigm that we're in.

Milton Friedman
Liberty University's Dave Brat on the State of the U.S. Economy

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

01:54 min | Last month

Liberty University's Dave Brat on the State of the U.S. Economy

"It's time to talk the truth about the economy with our good buddy former Virginia congressman dean of the business school at Liberty University, dean brat. Welcome back to America first. Great to be on. Thanks. So we've got an amazing cut. If we have time, I'll play to you from Andy puzder. But there's some fascinating news out there, BlackRock losing money, Vanguard might be in trouble. Is there something in the air that the ESG will of corporate America and investment funds may have run its course or am I being overly optimistic? Probably a hair optimistic, but they miscalculated. So who would a foresaw the decline of globalism and China cracking up? They got ghost cities, their debts, 300% of GDP. Ours is a 150. I thought that was bad. They're 300. They got locked downs of ten major cities at 30 million persons of pop. They've got bubbles all over their economy and so it's interesting, right? So BlackRock, Larry Fink, et cetera, ESG goes over there because they got a good clean environment. That's a joke. And they have good corporate governance and all that. So, you know, they use that as deploy and guilt folks in and to shame people in and to force coerce the Fortune 500 to join in. But now they miscalculated on the business. So perhaps they should have listened to their arch nemesis Milton Friedman many years ago who said the business of business is the maximization of profits and the profits have the greatest social welfare effects positive for humanity that you can imagine.

Dean Brat Andy Puzder Blackrock Liberty University America Larry Fink Vanguard Virginia China Milton Friedman
The March of Leftism Across South America

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

01:52 min | 3 months ago

The March of Leftism Across South America

"Want to talk about the march of leftism across South America, very troubling development, and we've seen it happen in recent months and in recent years. Now, of course, we know a lot about Venezuela. I talk about it in the podcast W, of course, talks about it a lot as well. But a number of other countries, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, even Chile, and Chile was kind of the most unkindest cut of all. And what I mean by that is that Chile has actually enjoyed an economic boom because of capitalism because of free market policies. In fact, free market policy is put into effect. With the advice of American economists like Milton Friedman and going back, almost 50 years or 50 years or more now. Chile created a pension system that produced a decent provision for people as they got into old age. Again, it was a pension system, not like America's social security plan, but a pension system that's invested in the market and as the market went up people saw their fortunes become a lot more comfortable and be able to provide for them when they needed it. And your Chile of all places pivoted to the left by electing a real far leftist. In fact, somebody who has in the past been associated with communism, a guy named Gabriel borik. An activist who came marching in promised a kind of new Chile. In fact, said that he was going to rewrite the Chilean constitution. He says the constitution was put into effect onto a dictator Augusto Pinochet. We're going to redo the whole constitution. There was a referendum in 2020 Anna majority. In fact, a decisive majority of chileans voted, yes, we do need a new constitution.

Chile South America Venezuela Ecuador Colombia Milton Friedman Peru Gabriel Borik America Augusto Pinochet Anna
"milton friedman" Discussed on The Pomp Podcast

The Pomp Podcast

04:56 min | 4 months ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on The Pomp Podcast

"There's also things like there's services that track what use car prices are doing. It comes out every couple of weeks instead of with a lag. And in my view pretty accurate. And like you said, there's really good rent indicators. Things like that. As we moved into 2022, kind of at the end of 2021, we started to see the fed talk tough. And then they actually started to act in 2022. And the overarching theme is basically destroyed demand. They keep using that phrase destroy demand destroyed demand. They now have done a number of aggressive interest rate hikes. They also have stated that they are going to do quantitative tightening. How effective can they be in destroying demand? And maybe even what does that mean in terms of the experience for everyday Americans or financial institutions? If the fed says they're going to destroy demand, what exactly does that entail? And then how effective can they be? So I think they could be effective in the near term. And I think to some extent they've already had been. They contributed to the housing market seizing up, for example. Basically, if you make financing costs a lot higher, that does impact companies ability to get capital. Consumers ability to get capital to borrow things to buy assets and to buy other things. And there's also a wealth effect, right? So going into this period, U.S. household net worth was 6 times as high as GDP. We got up to four and a half during the dotcom bubble. It got about the same height during the 2007 housing bubble, but going into this period, it was 6. It was 6 times. And so when the fed is able to put downward pressure on asset prices by doing things like ending QE, doing some mild QT, trying to raise rates to period of time. And if people see their asset prices going down pretty quickly, that can also change their discretionary spending levels. And so I think a lot of these things combined do impact demand in the near term, but the problem is that because the economy is so financialized because it's so much debt in the system and because the supply side is not really being fixed, especially if you look at the energy component of that specifically. It's kind of short sighted in the longer term. That basically the only way out of this is improving the supply side. Again, if you go back to does the fed not know, or do they know, but they're signaling differently. And so if they're fighting this like the 1970s, I think that's an error. I think instead they have to they have to be aware that in many ways it's more like the 1940s. And so 1970s attempts are likely to backfire and lead to more pain ahead. I think it's going to be I think we're going to have this inflation issue, I think, is going to be something that reoccurs for period of time. Famed economist Milton Friedman has said for years that sometimes the government solution is actually worse than the problem itself. If the fed is treating this like a 1970s situation and that is an error in their policy, what would the ramifications or impact be? What would you expect the problem then to become? I think that they can cause a recession and then you start to get problems and say the treasury market or things like that. And then they have to reverse course and then it damages their credibility and then they basically ironically by tightening they can impact the supply side.

fed U.S. Milton Friedman treasury
Former Speaker of House Newt Gingrich on the Democrats' Midterm Plan

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:49 min | 5 months ago

Former Speaker of House Newt Gingrich on the Democrats' Midterm Plan

"That I'm a little paranoid about though, mister speaker, and I talk about this openly on the program, is that the Democrats have some sort of plan for the midterms that we might not yet be gaming out correctly because I have so much respect for our opposition and how Machiavelli and they are and how they're able to use tragedy for their own purposes. What do you think their midterm plan is? Because up until recently, you know, as per your example of the Saudi Arabian visit, it seems as if they are enthusiastically accelerating over a cliff. Political consequences be damned, I suppose, what's your thoughts? Well, I think first of all, I help publish papers in the 1980s called the Grenada papers. When we liberated the island of Grenada, which spoke English, this was an island occupied largely by Africans living in the Caribbean with agriculture and tourism as there are two biggest incomes. And the communists took it over. And as the communists tried to impose communism, everything fell apart. It was a disaster. So we now know because this is how we got to the Grenada papers. Because everything they wrote was in English. So we didn't need to translate the State Department couldn't screw it up. And it turns out that the leadership of the Communist Party of Grenada, when everything was failing, would meet every Tuesday afternoon for a study group. And what they were studying was not supply side economics. It wasn't Milton Friedman. It wasn't Adam Smith. What they were studying was Stalin's writing. Now, you have a Georgian bank robber who becomes dictator of a country that covers 13 time zones, living in Moscow and really bad cold winter, being studied by African descended, Caribbean native native folks were looking around going, what should we do next? Well, what does Stalin think we should do? The reason I tell you this story is, when AOC gets in a room, she doesn't have any point of reference. But I mean, Biden's different. Biden doesn't have a point of reference because he's not sure what rumi said. But I guarantee you that Newsom Kamala Harris, barriers, other people, senator Warren, Bernie Sanders, who remember honeymooned in the Soviet Union. I mean, just ask yourself, a guy who is born who lives born in Brooklyn, but a guy who was living in the forest of Vermont. Besides to go on a honeymoon, does he go to the Caribbean? Does he go to the beach now? He goes to the motherland to the great forest of Russia from the forest of Vermont. I mean, this isn't true believer.

Grenada Communist Party Of Grenada Caribbean Stalin Milton Friedman State Department Adam Smith Biden Newsom Kamala Harris Senator Warren Moscow Rumi Bernie Sanders Soviet Union Brooklyn Vermont Russia
How Did the Kardashians Get Famous?

Dennis Prager Podcasts

01:02 min | 5 months ago

How Did the Kardashians Get Famous?

"What are some things going on in your life? Maybe we could have a disagreement about this business deal that you just entered into. In other words, I think they pick out real things and then try to make stories about them or blow, disagree. So all of that rehearsed? I don't know if it's rehearsed, but I think it's disgust in negotiated before. But it obviously is riveting. It is riveting. I've thought a lot about why I go there and watch it because I love reading the Bible. I love reading Milton Friedman and Dennis prager and all of these highly intellectual books and then at night occasionally I watch the Kardashians. It's a way for me to turn my brain off. Right. It's a way for me to look into another world. I mean, the level of wealth and influence they have is crazy, and it fascinates me, Dennis, how the heck did they get so famous?

Dennis Prager Milton Friedman Dennis
"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:38 min | 6 months ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Much more of an attempt to industrialize the whole process What is it a way to make more money or a way to do more good or do a little of both and in doing that do you do neither Well I think Milton Friedman probably might accept ESG funds because it has made a lot of money so far for the people offering the funds There is research although it's interesting that it's always the same few pieces of research that get cited That shows that investing in companies that show up well on ESG indexes does actually pay And there would be good reason for that if you're socially responsible if you have good governance if you're ahead of the curve on the energy transition you probably will do a bit better in the long run So there are ways in which it has made money over time I think the question becomes if you ever have to choose between making money and doing something good It's very hard to imagine that you could possibly there will always be money for example in tobacco And in alcohol And to some extent if you exclude investing in those you make it cheaper for everyone else Drugs have been so terrible Oh thank you That's John authors He's the senior market editor at Bloomberg Coming up we wrap up the week with special contributor Larry summers of Harvard That's next on Wall Street week on Bloomberg There's.

Milton Friedman Bloomberg John Larry summers Harvard
"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:24 min | 6 months ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Take us through the ups and the downs of ESG investing will come now John authors he is the senior editor for markets here at Bloomberg John thank you so much for being on Wall Street week Oh it's a pleasure So let's talk about the downs road There was a robust growth in ESG investing However when defines that for quite a time now this year we're seeing a trail off Why is that I think there are a number of factors in there One big part of it is simply that until now you've been able to have your cake and eat it because ESG investing has actually generally outperformed non ESG investing That's because the oil price has been low and there's been great excitement in having putting money into clean energy stocks Once you have an oil price rocketing higher you begin to have to make some more painful decisions about whether you're really going to make whether you're really prepared to forsake money to do ESG So that's one major part of it then there is a broader sense of a reckoning with the attempt to make capitalism kinder We had a couple of decade or so of people blaming the Milton Friedman idea of shareholder value that the only legitimate reason the only digit to put purpose for company managers was to maximize shareholder returns and that's seen as part of how we've had this very sluggish and hollowed out economy while the stock market is risen Now that ESG has got as big as it has people are beginning to ask is this working either Is this actually slanting playing fields in way we don't win ways we don't want Well another question besides is it working is what it is Yes different people define it very differently And now people think it's just responsible investing Yes I mean it's developed over the years Like 30 odd years ago it was ethical investing and it was generally particularly religious groups excluding things they really didn't like most obviously alcohol And even 30 years ago carbon carbon fuels Then it moved on to being SRI socially responsible investing Which made more of an attempt to positively find quote unquote good companies to invest in And ESG is.

Bloomberg John Milton Friedman John SRI
"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:26 min | 6 months ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"To take us through the ups and the downs of ESG investing will come now John authors he is the senior editor for markets here at Bloomberg John thank you so much for being on Wall Street week All right it's a pleasure So let's talk about the downstream There was a robust growth in ESG investing However what divines that for quite a time Now this year we're seeing a trail off Why is that I think there are a number of factors in there One big part of it is simply that until now you've been able to have your cake and eat it because ESG investing has actually generally outperformed non ESG investing That's because the oil price has been low and there's been great excitement in having putting money into clean energy stocks Once you have an oil price rocketing higher you begin to have to make some more painful decisions about whether you're really going to make whether you're really prepared to forsake money to do ESG So that's one major part of it Then there is a broader sense of a reckoning with the attempts to make capitalism kinder We had a decade or so of people blaming the Milton Friedman idea of shareholder value that the only legitimate reason the only digit to put purpose for company managers was to maximize shareholder returns and that's seen as part of how we've had this very sluggish and hollowed out economy while the stock market is has risen Now that ESG has got as big as it has people are beginning to ask is this working I there is this actually slanting playing fields in a way we don't win ways we don't want Well another question besides is it working is what it is Because different people define it very differently And now people say it's just responsible investing Yes I mean it's developed over the years like 30 odd was ethical investing and it was generally particularly religious groups excluding things they really didn't like most obviously alcohol And even 30 years ago carbon carbon fuels Then it moved on to being SRI socially responsible investing Which made more of an attempt to positively find quote unquote good companies to invest in And ESG is much more of an attempt.

Bloomberg John Milton Friedman John SRI
"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

04:03 min | 6 months ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Through the ups and the downs of ESG investing and welcome now John authors he is the senior editor for markets here at Bloomberg John thank you so much for being on Wall Street week All right it's a pleasure So let's talk about the downs Freud Yeah there was a robust growth in ESG investing However when defines that for quite a time now this year we're seeing a trail off why is that I think there are a number of factors in there One big part of it is simply that until now you've been able to have your cake and eat it because ESG investing has actually generally outperformed non ESG investing That's because the oil price has been low and there's been great excitement in having putting money into clean energy stocks Once you have an oil price rocketing higher you begin to have to make some more painful decisions about whether you're really going to make whether you're really prepared to forsake money to do ESG So that's one major part of it Then there is a broader sense of a reckoning with the attempt to make capitalism kinder We had a couple of decade or so of people blaming the Milton Friedman idea of shareholder value that the only legitimate reason the only digit to put purpose for company managers was to maximize shareholder returns and that seen as part of how we've had this very sluggish and hollowed out economy while the stock market is has risen Now that ESG has got as big as it has people are beginning to ask is this working either Is this actually slanting playing fields in way we don't win ways we don't want Well another question besides is it working is what it is Because different people define it very differently And now people think it's just responsible investing Yes I mean it's developed over the years like 30 odd years ago it was ethical investing and it was generally particularly religious groups excluding things they really didn't like most obviously alcohol And even 30 years ago carbon carbon fuels Then it moved on to being SRI socially responsible investing Which made more of an attempt to positively find quote unquote good companies to invest in And ESG is much more of an attempt to industrialize the whole process What is it a way to make more money or a way to do more good or do a little of both and in doing that do you do neither Well I think Milton Friedman probably might accept ESG funds because it has made a lot of money so far for the people offering the funds There is research although it's interesting that it's always the same feud pieces of research that get cited That shows that investing in companies that show up well on ESG indexes does actually pay And there would be good reason for that if you're socially responsible if you have good governance if you're ahead of the curve on the energy transition you probably will do a bit better in the long run So there are ways in which it has made money over time I think the question becomes if you ever have to choose between making money and doing something good it's very hard to imagine that you could possibly there will always be money for example in tobacco And in alcohol and to some extent if you exclude investing in those you make it cheaper for everyone else John has been so thank you That's John authors He's the senior market editor at Bloomberg Coming up we wrap up the week with special contributor Larry summers of Harvard That's next on Wall Street week on Bloomberg Three.

Bloomberg John Milton Friedman John SRI Bloomberg Larry summers Harvard
What Brought About This Inflation? YOUR GOVERNMENT

The Charlie Kirk Show

00:58 sec | 6 months ago

What Brought About This Inflation? YOUR GOVERNMENT

"What are The New York Times have to say about this back in August of 2021? A 179 reasons, you probably don't need a panic about inflation. Inflation is by far the number one issue in America. Every single poll shows that. You talk to working people, you talk to young people, they are getting crushed by these rising prices. So what brought about inflation? Answer your government. Your government, some Republicans and all Democrats, Republicans agreed with some of these spending bills, but not all of them decided to artificially intervene with anywhere between 5 to $7 trillion. Now, one of the great complaints I have is the economic illiteracy that plagues the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Milton Friedman said there should be two requirements for a politician that every politician takes in economic course and that every politician passes the economics course. The lack of economic literacy is destroying the country.

The New York Times America Milton Friedman Republican Party
Economic Truth in an Era of Financial Insanity With Dave Brahnsen

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:18 min | 8 months ago

Economic Truth in an Era of Financial Insanity With Dave Brahnsen

"There is no free lunch. It's pretty simple statement, but boy is it true? With us right now is someone who is author of a book called there is no free lunch. 250 economic truths. Dave Benson is with us right now. Dave, welcome to the Charlie Kirk show. Hey, good to be with you, Charlie. So let's just kind of start with your book kind of set the table here. What do you mean there's no free lunch? I got free stuff all the time, free stimulus checks, like I mean, come on. No free lunch. Yeah, the kind of twofold truth here is a, it's never free for everyone. There's someone paying the price. And then I think the bigger economic takeaway, Milton Friedman, famously, you know, use this language was that there's such thing as tradeoffs. So it's not just that there's no free things like when you get a stimulus check or whatnot that someone's paying for it. That's all true enough when it comes to public policy, the way we want to view things as conservatives. But I think even economically, it's important to understand that to get something we want, we give up something we want. When we go to buy something in the store, we give them our money. It would be great if we could keep our money and get the thing we want. But economics is about allocation of scarcity. And so there's a really important economic point here.

Dave Benson Charlie Kirk Charlie Milton Friedman Dave
Why Russia Is So Very Different With Paul Kengor

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

02:23 min | 8 months ago

Why Russia Is So Very Different With Paul Kengor

"Let's pretend it's day one of poor kangas communism in Russia one O one course. What is the first thing that neo fights that amateurs need to understand about Russia explain why Russia isn't like France, Russia isn't like Switzerland, is France isn't like Canada explain why Russia sorry, explain why Russia isn't like those countries and why it is so very, very different. And also the importance of the strong man. Yeah, it is so very, very different. And it's really kind of deep seated. In fact, our old friends, the late Richard pipes, who was professor at Harvard forever for a long time, going back to 19 50. He just died a few years ago. He wrote books on the Russian Revolution, the Russian Civil War, communism, a history. And he was in kind of a battle with Alexander Solzhenitsyn of all people, right? Who we also greatly respect because pipes made comments like this and souls in its and thought that pipes was making a comment on the Russian people generally, right? That this is a people that's kind of destined for authoritarian leaders. That this is part of Russian culture. This is how they are. And I'm not going to go that far. I'm not going to say that. But let's just say God bless pipes who is a giant in your field. But there's not a lot of evidence to the contrary that it isn't. Something deep seated in Russian culture from Ivan the terrible all the way to Putin, this atavistic innate proclivity to follow a strong man. That's not a statement unfounded by empirical data, is it poor? No, it's right. In fact, I remember in the 1990s post communist Russia period. And I was talking to somebody from there and he said, look, there are no Thomas jeffersons in Russia, right? You have this country so rich and playwrights, writers, literature, a pianist composers, right? Tolstoy, dostoyevsky, right? And some of them with great statements about morality that dostoevsky among them. But they've never had a Milton Friedman. They've never had a Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.

Russia Richard Pipes Kangas France Alexander Solzhenitsyn Switzerland Harvard Canada Thomas Jeffersons Putin Ivan Tolstoy Milton Friedman Thomas Jefferson James Madison
"milton friedman" Discussed on What Bitcoin Did

What Bitcoin Did

05:55 min | 10 months ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on What Bitcoin Did

"Thanks for having me, man. No, it was an easy choice. I like your book. Yeah, I want to get into it. Sweet. I want to talk about the 7th property. But let's do some background stuff, like take me on the journey to writing a book. More took you there. Okay, so now you want to start like background, because it's kind of a long story. Let's go. We got a drink. All right, so I'll start this, let's start this in freshman year of college. How do you know? 28. You're fucking baby. Jesus. Yeah, kind of at that age though, we're like everybody's starting to get a little bit older now though. 2027 28, all my Friends are starting to get married, so I gotta grow up. I'm kind of the immature one. You went to your 43 and everything stops working. So yeah. Freshman year of college, I was so I went to school I was studying finance and economics. And back then, I was very, I was very structured and I was thinking like, you know, I was like, career path, I want to work in private equity and I had this goal that I set up and I was set up this plan very structured to get to that point. And all the while I graduated college, I went to work for a management consulting firm. What do you major in? Finance and economics. And that was just like, you know, younger kid and I took personality tests and I was like, okay, I want to go into this field and I was always interested in economics. So I was kind of like a hobby of mine. The first book I feel like I read was capitalism and freedom by Milton Friedman. I was like my senior high school..

Milton Friedman
"milton friedman" Discussed on The Financial Guys

The Financial Guys

04:25 min | 11 months ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on The Financial Guys

"Rate is at an all time low. Thank God. Thank God. Thank God. Thank God. First of all, we want to just wall off California now, folks. Just wall it off. I think this guy is serious. These people are lunatics. Right? They're not sure. They're going to look at 2000 years of recorded history, and then some. We'd go back further than that. I'm just going to talk about the last 2000 years, okay? What's made human existence successful is the family unit. Look, and Milton Friedman said at best, right? Each individual is pursues their own individual self interest. That is human nature. And it's true in private business as it is true in government. So don't think government somehow is altruistic and pure. It's the same people pursuing their own individual interests. The difference in free market capitalism is people pursue their own interests, but they have to do that in conjunction with other people and work together, right? In our society, it extends beyond the individual really to the family unit. So we don't just think of ourselves as an individual and what's best for ourselves. We think oftentimes it was beneficial for ourselves and our family, right? As a group, that's what's made society successful, but a mom and a dad in a household caring about their children. That nurturing and caring of raising your kids with the values that are important to you. Why in the world would you ever as a wealthy person give your child to a homeless drug addict? That's what they always do right. They start to divide us among wealth. And to be honest with you, it's not about wealth. It's about family structure. You know, as a kid growing up. Personal responsibility. I had a mom and a dad, and we didn't have tons of money. We certainly weren't poor. My dad worked sometimes two jobs if he had to, right? But I don't remember thinking as a child, oh my gosh, I want more, meaning that, oh, I don't have this big house. I had love in the house, right? And that's the deal. It's having the mom and dad in the child's life together, right? Yeah, there's some families that have more wealth and stuff like that. Yes. But having that synergy together is way more important than any of that. I remember as a kid, I don't look back as my childhood and go, man, I wish we had more money. And I wish we would have flown to Disney World. I went fishing with my dad three days a week. That was awesome. That was more to me. I would take that over anything, right? I don't look back and go, man, I wish I had more. No, it was that time that quality time being able to bond together, being able to grow, being able to teach your kids the values of what's happening. I mean, just having to even if it's one. Even if you lost a parent if they passed or you just got divorced or sadly something happened. As long as you're still in my life, well sure. But if you have, if you have people in your life, what could be grandparents, it could be handsome uncles. But it's the family, right? Nobody cares for you, like your family does, right? My mom always said that. There's nothing like your family, right?.

Milton Friedman California Disney World
"milton friedman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

01:33 min | 1 year ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"From the Dan Bon Geno show so I have some of my given that it's the end of the year favorite conservative video clips of all time I got three of them Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman clips I go back to repeatedly Because they just speak to so many different things and the ability of conservatives to consistently discredit nonsensical liberal talking points And how they do it Trying to replicate the Thomas soul Milton Friedman Friedman models staying a little more common debates I tend to get a little excited It's The New Yorker Remy So I got that coming up and also Dan Rooney at the top of the hour He's a really really good guy Runs one of the best over on charities in America just a good good guy Speaking of which this is was not intentional It's programmed They had to get programmed that way in advance Here's the charity right here Folds of honor Wearing their shirt today You see me wearing these shirts on the podcast all the time There are currently 2 million spouses in children whose family member were killed or disabled in defense of our country 9 out of ten of them receive absolutely no federal educational assistance Folds of honor folds of honor wearing the shirt right now for those of you watching on Fox nation Folds of honor Proudly provides the resources to those that desire and need our help I'll be making a donation on Christmas Day The folds of honor the foundation offers a private school tuition or tutoring engaged in grades K through 12 as well as tuition for college technical or trade school to the families of the 1% of Americans who protect our freedom Since its inception folds of honor has awarded more than 35,000 scholarships totaling over.

Dan Bon Geno Milton Friedman Friedman Thomas Sowell Milton Friedman Dan Rooney Remy Thomas America Fox
"milton friedman" Discussed on Mind Pump

Mind Pump

05:57 min | 1 year ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on Mind Pump

"Serious move. The other day he wore like a sport coat and a sport goat. Yeah, and then he put on some Felix gray glasses. And he just went in with a slick, so what grade is he in now? He's in third grade. Third grade. Yeah. Wow. Third grade he's doing that? Yeah. That's a big deal in third grade. Oh, yeah. Yeah, especially third, fourth 5th. I would like this. That was totally like that. I remember you and I talked about this. When we first met, I remember that was one of the things that I liked about you because I was like, that's how I was. I was always about. I know, I connected with you like, 'cause, I mean, I'm not like a huge fashion guy, but I definitely like to find things that nobody else has or I could be unique somehow. So what did you get feedback on the glasses in the sport? I dude, the kids were all asking them about it. Why are you wearing those? And you kind of like, he says that it's good for him when he's on the screen. You know? I've at least like a doctor needed him with that. And so I'm gonna be interested to see if this becomes a thing like within this class if the other kids are gonna be like, all of a sudden, wearing them, and then he'll not wear them once they are. Your son's got an affiliate code? I'm all for that, dude. That's where it's at. That's all it takes is one popular kid to make it cool. Make it a trend in the school. Everett. Ever at 50 for that's hilarious. He hustling dude. Hey, speaking of discounts and this kind of stuff, I found an old Milton Friedman clip. So Milton Friedman is that you hadn't watched? So there's so many clips. There's so many videos of him talking at universities, like they're long and sometimes they're drive on and so I guess I haven't seen every single one. I thought I'd seen everyone. I thought for sure you have. No, and maybe I did see this one. I just forgot this particular point, but he was speaking at it..

Felix Milton Friedman Everett
Why Do Liberals and Socialists Love Inflation So Much?

The Dan Bongino Show

00:48 sec | 1 year ago

Why Do Liberals and Socialists Love Inflation So Much?

"Why do liberals and socialists love inflation so much Ladies and gentlemen they love it because it is the quietest most pernicious tax of all It is a way to take money out of your wallet without ever touching your wallet The government exists especially liberals and socialists and fake Republicans in it for one reason To take your money and spend it on what it wants not what you want Now it's hard to do that when you see it coming out of your check in your pay stump That's another reason they love withholding and they don't want you writing a check at the end of the year They don't want you to ever acknowledge how much you're really paying Here is a great cut however Milton Friedman explaining how governments running deficits which they have to finance by printing more money creates inflation and how that's the quietest tax of all because the government takes your money and they don't even have to tell you it's beautiful

Government Milton Friedman
"milton friedman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

04:16 min | 1 year ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"A lot of stuff he couldn't use and he didn't demand So he had a lot of things he could trade but he had nobody to trade them with because no one was producing anything he demanded Having a bunch of money to go out and buy stuff that doesn't exist is useless I'd rather have a bunch of stuff I needed to survive and no money than a bunch of money and no stuff Here is a supercut had tipped the great Tom Elliott at graban This is a supercut of the evolving message on inflation where don't worry inflation's no big deal Don't worry it's transitory And don't worry this is actually a good thing Jim queue up for me cut 5 is about a minute and ten seconds Check this out We take inflation very seriously Economists call all these things transitory effects These one time increases in prices are likely to have only transitory effects on inflation There will be a transitory impacts as it relates to inflation I believe it's transitory temporary or transitory impact Demand it will be transitory These inflation rises will be transitory that they will come back down next year Inflation is going to come down next year Inflation will come down next year Welcome inflation The overwhelming consensus is going to pop up a little bit and then go back down People fully expect this inflation to be temporary There's nobody suggesting there's not such inflation on the way No serious economies The president's build back better agenda as a whole will ease some of that inflationary pressure The bipartisan infrastructure deal and build back better agenda could likely ease inflationary pressures It will ease longer term inflationary inflationary pressures We're going to ease inflationary pressure I don't think that these investments will drive up inflation at all Build that better will not increase inflation The overall build back better vision is designed to reduce inflationary pressures As Buttigieg again racist road guy So again just to be clear inflation is a monetary phenomenon everywhere Milton Friedman was right We've got some Milton for you can't ever do a show without Milton Friedman quotes once in a while I've got Milton Friedman cuts coming up explaining how inflation works It's not simple It's not a complicated folks actually very simple When more money is printed to chase fewer products the products can demand more money You have more people with money trying to buy fewer products I don't mean to insult the intelligence of the great conservatives and warriors for freedom and listen to the show in a support to me I don't And I never want to waste your time But seriously I'm not kidding although you find this stuff elementary Like of course inflation is more people flush with more printed money chasing less Of course there are legitimately people who don't understand this I'm not kidding Many of sadly are on the left They really believe if you print more money and create quote demand that products will magically appear for you to buy They don't believe in saves law the production creates the man They believe demand creates demand which somehow creates production which is totally best awkward Now why do liberals and socialists love inflation so much Ladies and gentlemen they love it because it is the quietest most pernicious tax of all It is a way to take money out of your wallet without ever touching your wallet The government exists especially liberals and socialists and fake Republicans in it for one reason To take your money and spend it on what it wants not what you want Now it's hard to do that when you see it coming out of your check in your pay stump That's another reason they love withholding and they don't want you writing a check at the end of the year They don't want you to ever acknowledge how much you're really paying Here is a great cut however Milton Friedman explaining how governments running deficits which they have to finance by printing more money creates inflation and how that's the quietest tax of all because the government takes your money and they don't even have to tell you it's beautiful Too up for me caught 5 No that's sorry Jim cut 6 This is Milton Friedman on inflation relish every single word of this Check this out What do you want you.

Milton Friedman Tom Elliott Buttigieg Jim Milton
"milton friedman" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

05:54 min | 1 year ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"And Parkinson's? And all of these? I mean, you know Milton Friedman, who was a friend of mine. I'm proud to say he was a proud and as you know, he was a Hoover Institute fellow as you are. He used to say, you know, when the FDA is holding up life saving drugs You know, it's it's actually costing lives. So could we use Operation Warp speed for future? Uh, breakthrough drugs? Well, I hope so. By the way, you know, when I first came to Hoover, Milton Friedman's office is right down the hall. I have a proper owner of a folder of redlined manuscripts. I wrote because I have no Tendency to be that's cool. But anyway cool. That's a side story. But anyway, not I agree. I think your observation is correct. There's a tremendous amount of unnecessary and very costly bureaucracy. In the process of getting a drug developed the FDA the clinical trials have expanded so much it's massive. As you know, it's you know, we're talking billions of dollars to develop a drug and 14 years on average, will buy 14 years. That's a lot of lives lost. So the operation warp speed stuff a lot can be learned. I mean, you know, I think that we had some discussions about things like this about cutting bureaucracy. You know, it is a special case. Of course, when you're dealing with a national emergency issue, an emergency use authorization so but you could see. I mean, listen, you know, when we see that there's a Question about fat teen safety and we hear on the news that yes, and they're going to meet about this two weeks from today. Well, you know, this is the kind of insane bureaucratic delays. It's a different world as Steve, as you know, inside government. There. There is far less urgency. There's a massive amount of bureaucratic delay and a lot of things can be done to cut out unnecessary and very costly delays in developing new drugs. There's no doubt about Yeah, Yeah, yeah, I would say that things like Alzheimer's and cancer and Parkinson's are, however national emergencies and I'd love to see this whole process sped up. Um, so the question I get asked all the time and I have no idea what the answer to this is, but I hear different answers from people's whose opinion like yours I respect should young people under the age of 18 be vaccinated because you may have seen Scott that this week, the National Education Association has said, Hey, we may not allow schools to open up in the fall unless every child is vaccinated. Yeah. I mean, this is, uh First of all, the first statement is, people are high risk should really consider getting the vaccine no matter what your age, and there are high risk Children and high prestige ear's in high risk young adults No doubt about that. Hold on. Let me just interrupt you for one second, So give me an example of someone like a child who would be at high risk. Okay, Well, I mean, what are significantly obese and diabetics Oh, God or severe heart disease. You know serious illnesses when you take about talk about a child whose high has comorbidities You talk about serious problems. You're not talking about some minor thing. In fact, almost no child has died without a significant or multiple significant comorbidities. I mean, it's essentially it's nearly zero. And so you know, separately, the question of mandatory or even needing a vaccine as a child. I mean, I'm no one's doctor out there. But I can tell you this There is almost zero risk from the disease for Children. Why would you vaccinate a child for something that they don't have a significant risk from if they catch and the reason is very simple and heinous Indictment of America, frankly but particularly of teachers. Which is that there is this somehow, uh, goal of using Children as shields for adults who are afraid of catching the illness. This I don't know. I mean to me, okay? I'm a parent. My my, My job is to protect my child. My child job is not to protect me. And this is really even worse than that. Because here we have a When you're injecting a drug into somebody. There are potential side effects. This is not even fully approved drugs. These are drugs under emergency use authorization. Anyone. Ceron a clinical trial, injecting an experimental drug into a child who has no significant risk from the illness should have their medical ethics review and really be be under a panel of criminal activity. In my view and hyperbole. This is really important. So you're saying what the n A is advocated is bad for the health of our Children. It's absolutely outrageous. And I feel very, very sad that, uh, that parents have been any parent would accept that that is absolutely outrageous. In fact, you know it's it's completely unethical for the medical profession, and it's immoral on the basis of individual to do something that Hey, Scott, First of all, thank you so much for being with us on Fourth of July weekend. I know this is a time for rest and relaxation. And and what you've done for our country is amazing. I need to get you back on in a few weeks because I want to talk about lockdowns because Paul Krugman take a big hit at me today in his in his column, saying Steve Moore advocated for getting rid of lockdowns and he's responsible for people dying. So can you come back on sometime soon, and we talk more about that? I'd love to do it. Okay, thanks that Scott Atlas folks he is with the Hoover Institute served for President Trump on his health task force, and we will be right back. You're listening to more money on 77 WBC talk radio. It's Joe Piscopo. Hey,.

Steve Moore Joe Piscopo Paul Krugman Steve Hoover Institute 14 years National Education Association FDA one second Scott this week Milton Friedman President Trump Fourth of July today First Scott Atlas Parkinson two weeks first
"milton friedman" Discussed on WZFG The Flag 1100AM

WZFG The Flag 1100AM

01:30 min | 1 year ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on WZFG The Flag 1100AM

"Bongino. Alright, folks use these videos. I was talking about Milton Friedman, who is just, um Master of the ability to Relay an idea. You know, some of the greatest players in sports and human history became terrible coaches because they weren't very good at explaining why they were very good. Maybe their genetics. They never had a practice that much right. Milton Friedman explained things like no one else. God rest his soul. And in this block, I've been trying to explain to you why Democrats policies of taking your tax money, expanding their power, redistributing and using their power to take your assets and give him the others will always fail. It is never for the little guy. It always winds up crushing the little guy, but no one explains it better than Freeman. Here's cut one. I want you to pay very close attention. He's answering a question from a liberal gentleman who asks it nicely, But he says, Hey, if we just tax people and take away their money, it's a really great idea because we tax them and then we make them work really hard to get their money back, and therefore they're working extra hard and we get to give away their money to people who need it. Now, if you're a liberal list thing, you've stopped listening there because you don't think critically. You're like that makes a lot of sense. That sounds great. No, it doesn't. It's really stupid and listen to, Friedman explained. Why check yourself? Isn't there some benefit to having the Government steal our money, which is what they do effectively. They hold a gun to her head and say, pay us 40% even come or go to jail. They take this money and they give it mostly the government employees. The government employees spend it..

Milton Friedman Government Freeman
"milton friedman" Discussed on 790 KABC

790 KABC

07:40 min | 1 year ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on 790 KABC

"Here's these videos I was talking about. Milton Friedman was just, um, a master of the ability to Relay an idea. You know, some of the greatest players and sports and human history became terrible coaches because they weren't very good at explaining why they were very good. Maybe their genetics. They never had a practice that much right. Milton Friedman explained things like no one else. God rest his soul. And in this block, I've been trying to explain to you why Democrats policies of taking your tax money, expanding their power, redistributing and using their power to take your assets and give him the others will always fail. It is never for the little guy. It always winds up crushing the little guy, But no one explains it better than Friedman. Here's cut. One. I want you to pay very close attention. He's answering a question from a liberal gentleman who asks it nicely, but He says, Hey, if we just tax people and take away their money, it's a really great idea because we tax them and then we make them work really hard to get their money back, and therefore they're working extra hard and we get to give away their money to people who need it. Now, if you're a liberal list thing, you've stopped listening there because you don't think critically. You're like that makes a lot of sense. That sounds great. No, it doesn't. It's really stupid and listen to, Friedman explained. Why check this out? Isn't there some benefit? Having the government steal our money, which is what they do effectively the hold a gun to our head and say, Pass 40% even come and go to jail. They take this money and they give it mostly the government employees. The government employees spend it. The margin propensity to consume is pretty high, So the people who were robbed have to do something creative to get the money back. And isn't this creative activity? The real Well, I take it that they would have to be still more creative of 98% were being spent by the government. Now the third part of your thing is just pure fallacy from beginning to end. Because if those people are now government employees were employed in creative activity and productive activity, they would also be spending their money. And we'd have a greater total around or you're doing. Let's suppose for a moment, take the extreme case, but that 40% is being used just to have people sit around the fact that they spend their money. Doesn't alter the situation. The only product there is, is what the 60% produced and that 60% is divided among the 100% poor guy. Don't ever ask Milton Friedman a question. You don't know the answer to because these videos are everywhere on video formats out there, and you can see them and Friedman never, ever loses the debate, and the reason he never loses. The debate is because again, liberals never process fax and data. They don't they believe in talking points. This guy. Very gentlemanly questioned asked in a respectful way, but he gets owned by Friedman because he doesn't know anything. That made actual sense to him, Joe that if we tax people and take 40% of their income, it incentivizes them tow work more because they have to work extra hard to get the 40% back. Meanwhile, same people like me and Joe actually work for a living. Unlike that guy he may have. I don't even know if he's still alive. Whatever. I don't know his name say to ourselves. That doesn't exactly make sense. If the harder we work, the less money we make, because the government takes more. The incentive is to do the opposite is to work less to make less money, so we don't have to pay as much taxes and could actually keep relatively the same amount of money because if we worked less, we'd move into a lesser tax bracket. That's the same person approach. Friedman makes another point as well. That taxing a group of productive citizens to pay others not toe work means less production off the stuff that makes us wealthy. So taxing people. Excessive confiscatory amounts. Tana logically doesn't make us better off because we produce less stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, What makes us wealthy is not talking points. What makes us wealthy as a country is stuff. We are wealthy because we produce cars and homes and medical services. We produce tech products we produced off. That's why we're wealthy. The difference between us and Third World countries is they don't have stuff We have so taxing people who make stuff to get them to make less stuff to give the money to people who don't make stuff is a recipe for poverty. Think it through, man. Here's the second part of this clip. The line I used in the show, often about the great fallacy of government spending. People think. Oh, it's not that bad. You know, government spending is great because they think Don't worry. They're just spending my neighbors money. That's interesting because the neighbor thinks the same thing about you if those 40% are also producing goods, and they're more goods to go around among everybody. You are just involved in a fallacy of looking at dollars. Which is important sometimes. Instead of looking at the real product, the goods and services that people producing people consume. Bending isn't good. What's good is producing What we want to have any more goods and services. And as I say, the obvious indication that that's clear is that if your logic were right, it would apply it for 50% 60% 70 90 9800%, and obviously you would see that that would be a bunch of nonsense. At that stage, it is desirable to have some money spent by government. For those things, those services that we believe we can get more usefully and more effectively through government. People are getting their money's worth fun. That's why it's very desirable to have governmental expenditures take place that is local level is possible. Is you as a citizen of small community can judge whether you're getting your money's worth. You could decide that you want to spend it. When it comes to the federal government. You tend to think that you're spending somebody else's money and you are in a way. He's spending yours that the man's a genius. What else did that man is a genius. There is simply maybe outside of Thomas Soul who is probably either. I don't know, Tide or a close second. It's probably no. One in our time in this generation to get a better job explaining common sense economics than Milton Friedman. All right. Moving on. This is the comedy block of the show. Block C TV lingo. Here's Twitter Twitter. Apparently, the government of India has demanded. They blocked certain Twitter accounts. Twitter saying that you know we're really pissed about that. And here's what they tweeted out. This is not a joke. This is an actual tweet by there at Twitter Safety count. This is not an attempt at humor. This is a real tweet by Twitter. However, we've not taken any action talking about the demand tive block Indian accounts. Accounts that consists of news media entities, journalists, activists, politicians, We will continue to advocate right of free express. Oh my gosh, this is this is really hard to believe. We will continue to advocate for the right of free expression on behalf of people we serve and are exploring options that their Indian law folks I mean, this really How do you describe this other than shameless? They even reading their own tweets. So on the same day, literally this morning, they announced that they are banning trump forever. Trump is banned forever from to it. He will never be allowed back on. Even if he runs for office. They announced that this morning they dramatically missed some of their estimates. Twitter for DEA used daily active users, which I've been telling you is the key metric forget about accounts, it's daily active users..

Milton Friedman Twitter government Trump Joe India Tana Thomas Soul DEA
Romney proposes monthly checks for parents, up to $350 per child

Hammer and Nigel

02:08 min | 1 year ago

Romney proposes monthly checks for parents, up to $350 per child

"ABC. Is this child benefit plan part of this stimulus thing, or just something separate this increasing the child tax credit of What is it like $250 per child every month? What? Yeah, they want to basically do something that is more or less universal basic income. They want to give you it's in the 250. I actually might be 3 50 per child every single month, and you know the problem with this plan guys. It's actually based universal basic income is actually an idea that was backed by a nick honest by the name of Milton Friedman, who was very, very bright. But what Ms Singing all of this because universal basic income is Hey, what is going to have the government send you a check every single month on make sure that you don't fall below a certain level. Friedman's plan eliminates all of the other and government programs that are designed to try and lift people out of poverty. It eliminates them and it also overtime. Make sure that we don't decrease or reduce the incentive to work. So he is something called the negative income tax, which is a little bit. I mean, that's really getting into the weeds. But what they want to do is just basically pile money on top of what people are already getting and again. I mean, you know these these issues I mean the child tax credit all of these other things that they're trying to throw into this mass cash. These are all things that we can argue about, and we can debate after we're out of the recession and people have been vaccinated and the pandemic is over. All of these other things that are going on right now. You can't tell me we had to get money in people's hands because families they're hurting and then your first day in office. First week in office, signed a bunch of executive orders. They killed jobs. And don't worry about protecting the environment. Screw the environment right now. We can worry about it. We're out of this reception guys be on Lee jobs that the government should be worrying about is making sure we don't get bombed defense. They should be getting people vaccinated and keep people from solving you. Don't worry about what you've got is best. It's in the walls where the house is burning down. Um, wi be si dot com was where

Milton Friedman ABC Friedman Lee Jobs
"milton friedman" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

07:41 min | 1 year ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"We are this morning and always the show of ideas never once the show of attitude. In 1970 Milton Friedman. Wrote a piece in The New York Times his I believe it was in the Sunday magazine. If I'm not mistaken, the title of the article somewhat provocative was the social responsibility of business. Used to increase its profits kind of seems straightforward to me. It's so obvious to me it was in 1970 when I read it that I said Well, who would think otherwise? I asked myself, Friedman went on to explain. He argued that it was not only immoral but inefficient for corporation to do anything other than maximize shareholder value. So long as it could do so legally and consistent with cultural norms. Seems pretty straightforward to me. My question this morning is Was Milton Friedman wrong? Is Milton Friedman wrong When one challenges and icon such as Milton Friedman, you trade very lightly and very carefully. Help us answer the question. Was Milton treatment Wrong? I'm happy to welcome to the show. Ed Freeman. Ed is a professor of Business administration at the University of Virginia that it's school of business. He's an author of Several books and countless articles in a while ago, he wrote Strategic management, a stakeholder approach. He wrote that in 2000 and 10, if I'm not mistaken, more recently, uh Head. Wrote a book that I Reviewed breadth review on listen to Ed discuss the book many times in a zoo. He was explaining the book to various audiences. The book is called the Power. Of and he wrote that with Kirsten Martin and bid home, Parmer and innit Ed seems to take the position that yes, Milton Friedman was wrong up. Perhaps kind of wrong or perhaps may have missed the point a bit. But rather than me explain to you the point of the book. I'm happy to welcome to the show. Ed Freeman, the one of the co authors of the power of end and in that book, as you will learn. Head fleshes out. To whom a corporation does or should. Oh, duties over responsibilities, which are the stakeholders, If you will, that a corporation must be responsive to in carrying out its core function, which is to provide goods and services. But others might choose to purchase. So, Ed. Welcome to the show this morning and let's start off by my asking you directly. Was Milton Friedman wrong in his position that it is not only immoral but inefficient for a corporation to do anything other than Maximize shareholder value and good morning and welcome to the show it Thanks, Bob. Thanks for having me on look. First of all, Friedman is one of my intellectual heroes for a number of reasons. I would say it's less a matter of Once he wrong, then a matter of does his reasoning applying to business today. Now I think what Friedman missed. Content and economists and he wanted to do not. You want to explain how markets work? But he missed the what really makes a business successful. Any successful business has gotta have products and services that customers want. Suppliers to make him better employees to show up and use their minds because citizens in the community and make money for shareholders, those things go together on that's about the business. I don't think Friedman was wrong so much as I don't think he understood as an economist on as an academic economists. Uh, what? What really makes a great business tick. Now, a question. Um, you had said a second ago. Just one second real in acid in my question that Friedman didn't it wasn't your exact words didn't quite go far enough. And a corporation should or ought to, uh or must pay attention. To the needs off other stakeholders, other constituencies other than shareholders. Now, my core question Both had occurred to me in going through your book, and it listening to you explain it his a core question. And maybe it'll be a question which will build on During the show. Would up. I would never challenge the principle that in Maximizing shareholder value. It might be An important tool. It might be a can important consideration that the wealth of the corporation, the shareholder value is furthered by Being having it lightened employee management HR policy, because if you have employee turnover that increases HR course, and that's bad for business. It would be important to treat creditors and suppliers fairly because they'll stop selling to you. It will charge you more and again, it'll effect profits so rather than list Yeah. All the employees and the community and your vendors and government as stakeholders. Aren't they all treating them nicely? Nicely is a kind of a platitude. Isn't that simply a means to the most important dende, which is increasing shareholder value, So is it appropriate? Carry those other constituencies on the same line as paying attention to them is as important as paying attention to shareholder value. Or are they simply Is it important to pay attention to them to increase shareholder value? Well, what about many people have something that steak by saying its shareholders that are really most important or its customers that are really most important. On. I really don't I think the so the wisdom I get from the businesses that I see are that You have to get these interests going in the same direction over time. If you don't, for instance, in a free society, what those interests will do is go to government..

Milton Friedman Ed Freeman Head professor of Business administ The New York Times Sunday magazine Kirsten Martin Strategic management University of Virginia Bob
"milton friedman" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

WIBC 93.1FM

03:12 min | 2 years ago

"milton friedman" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

"Responds with a quote from Milton Friedman, saying there's no such thing as a free lunch. No, I got to tell you That's That's very, very funny. That's a very funny 12 thing. The best is Sam Stein. Who is with politico on MSNBC. Responds with an aggressive first volley in the 2024 shadow wars, this time, taking a sharp stand against giving disadvantaged kids food. Now. Is that what they're discussing? Did Nikki Haley or Christine? Um, opposed the idea of giving food to kids were hungry. Of course not rational people know this. But if you're a punk from politico Who was on Lee there to attack You think this is the conversation? Or at least this is how you position it. And then my parents are proven correct to say in America. What the hell is wrong with you? I do not know what it's like to so desperately pimp oneself out to be liked. Trust me. I don't get invited to many parties. Mama who too, Which is really the shame. Neither Nikki Haley nor governor Gnome. We're saying you should let kids go hungry. They were discussing the reality of the situation here is what the school's doing here. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Maybe Nikki Haley comes back with, we least believe in private charity, and that's what this is here. We're talking about the setup, not the cost of the food. They could have had a great conversation. That's not what the left wants. It's very obvious that there are so many On the political left to believe in such a different thing than the political right in terms of what the nation is. And even in terms of the fundamental conversations it is not about what what are you trying to say? Here? What are you trying to say? Interesting? It's about what are you saying? How do I work to manipulate that to destroy you? Everything. We should be opposed to That's why my father's hyperventilating in the corner. And that's why my mother is looking around, saying my parents escaped Poland for this. And then they get themselves back together and they go back to work. Yes, because it 82 73. They still work. They have a small business. And they pay their taxes so people who call them Racists. Yeah. There's real anger America. And there seems to be no end off fomenting it in sight. Take a breath. Take a deep breath. I'm Tony Katz. You don't have to miss any part of Tony Cats today. Solve that problem by subscribing to the podcast rumble dot com Rumble is a video sharing service like the tube guys, but they aren't playing around with the monetizing and the platform in content..

Nikki Haley politico America Lee Milton Friedman Sam Stein Tony Katz MSNBC Tony Cats Poland Christine
The Anthony Fauci controversy

Ben Shapiro

04:53 min | 2 years ago

The Anthony Fauci controversy

"But we begin with doctor Anthony Fauci before the Senate and this cause all sorts of controversy not frankly I'm sort of perturbed at the controversy the reason being I don't think that she's a bad guy I don't think that algae is out to ruin the American economy I don't think they think that he's a malign influence on president trump I think the doctor felt she is up in the mail just and his job is the epidemiologist his job is to be a doctor of public health when it comes to pandemics his job is not to balance all of the risks and rewards when you go to a doctor you look for diagnosis usually the doctor puts before you a fair number of choices and it is now your determination as to which choice you seek right the doctor puts before you have cancer god forbid and the doctor says to you okay so you're the choices you could have a surgery here the rest and then the possibilities you have to know therapy here the rest of the possibilities are depending on your age maybe the best thing is to sort of let it take its course you're eighty five years old in your prostate cancer maybe the treatment is actually worse than the disease and I have a bunch of choices in front of you does not the doctor's job to make the final determination when it comes to public policy making our elected officials are reluctant to make exactly these determinations why well because they're answerable two weeks they are answerable to us there as we the people the fact that we are now looking to sort of delegate all decision making authority to the experts is V. is the tail end of the progress of the year a stupidity that suggested that if we just gave all power to the quote unquote experts in government and everything would magically we solved the experts are good for experts are good for exports are good for knowing a lot of things that one particular subject but they're not famous for knowing lots of things that lots of particular subject if you ask doctor about you about Keynesian verses Milton Friedman ask economics my guess is that he wouldn't know much more than the average guy but if you ask me about disease vectors and probably knows a lot more than the average guy asking him to be the sole policy maker is really foolhardy and even doctor felt she knows this and so we sort of moved from the left to appoint Dr founded in government when he's not head of government what to use him as a club to wield against elected officials again are answerable all of whom are answerable tossed right the fact that people must want to do that and the fact that the people on the right are responding to that by blending felt use the voucher is to blame for lawmakers abdicating their duty and just pointing to vouching on what he's going to solve all our problems it's stupidity frankly I think the doctor felt she would be the first person to say that it's stupidity he is there to provide medical knowledge and guidance and then it is up to us to determine what risks we're willing to undertake as a society what this means that when people I talk about you in public health experts testify publicly they're always going to testify on behalf of caution because their job is first do no harm on the public health level not an economic level not on the freedom level not a constitutional level not a governmental level the first job is to say how do we save the most lives well into middle of pandemic the easy answer if you're not looking at any of the other factors is stay home until we have some sort of therapeutic or until we have some sort of acting but of course there are other factors to take into account when it comes to public policy making such as the fact that we may never have that team or therapeutic may not be all that effective and the fact that thirty million people lost their jobs in the last six weeks and there are countervailing cost to people losing their jobs losing their livelihood a hundred thousand small businesses shutting out this is where it's at for public of our public officials the people who actually elect elected officials to weigh the evidence the doctor vouchers providing his advice but the evidence provided by economist with the values that we hold dear as a nation I mean it just takes a second for example for a second in a wartime what if you were to ask a public health expert in war time what is the best policy public health experts job is to save as many lives as possible so the public health experts say best strategy here is probably not to do the war right no war is good because that means few people are gonna get shot and killed but if you are not an official in his World War two you know that they're gonna be a certain number of people we're gonna have to risk their lives on the beaches of Normandy it is not to suggest that the public health experts are wrong about everything this is to suggest that everybody has their own specific area of expertise and we're this means a broad area of expertise is really foolish in a Republic we rely on the notion that a diffuse level a value judgment among the American population is gonna be better than any one individual's values the American people overall are going to be wiser about weighing all these factors in balance when they elect people then just one guy who's part of the bureaucracy we'll get to a doctor found had to say is it in that light I don't think what you had to say was all that controversial but I think they're politicians were completely looking to abdicate responsibility for their actual decision making role in American politics right now and simply shouting data and science and public health officials without you saying look what will brexit saying look at all the scientists are saying Hey that's not your only job is supposed to take all that into consideration and then you are supposed to wear all of the values that are currently under consideration plus you're supposed to determine the the level of certainty that public health officials are expressing about the view in the future about the future generally because experts maybe more expert than you but that does not mean that one hundred percent certain knowledge of the

Anthony Fauci Senate
Will a Universal Basic Income finally get a real shot?

The Big Story

14:46 min | 2 years ago

Will a Universal Basic Income finally get a real shot?

"You can say one thing for the current crisis. It's given us a chance to try a lot of things that we might never have had the will to do otherwise I amongst those just giving people money okay not everyone but millions and millions of people in Canada and not forever but at least for a few months and this isn't a new idea. It's been around in some form or another for decades. You probably know it as universal basic income and you might associate it with the most progressive voices come the liberal side of the spectrum and you may also associate the opposition to it with complaints of lazy people want free cash instead of working but despite having a long history as a potential way to ease poverty and improve health. This has never been tried on a large scale or for a long time. So the people arguing on either side of it have never had enough evidence to prove their point. So it's been a political football until like with so many things. These days along came the virus and now getting money to people who need it quickly is absolutely essential governments around the world even the most conservative of them have done that and those who support or oppose that kind of policy have mostly agreed on the need for it. It's what happens next. And what we learned from that will determine if we finally give a universal basic income. A real shot. So we'll explain history of the policy small tests that we've seen on it be political behind it and whether or not it will stick around when we get out of this current mass. And we'll do that as soon as Claire gives the details on this current mess cargill is dealing with the outbreak at one of its meat processing plants. This one isn't Schambori Quebec southeast of Montreal. Sixty four workers have tested positive. There cargill had another outbreak a few weeks ago at a beef packing plant in high river. Alberta in that outbreak more than nine hundred workers tested positive. It reopened last week after a two-week shutdown also in Quebec schools in the western part of the province are set to reopen today but attendance is optional. Desks will be spaced apart. And there can be no more than fifteen kids in a classroom at a time. Ontario reported the lowest number of cases of Cova nineteen for the province on Sunday since March. Two hundred ninety four new cases. And this comes. The province reopens Provincial Parks and Conservation Areas. Although camping is still not allowed and things like beaches playgrounds and public washrooms are still off limits. And lastly schedule and is suspending the sale of alcohol in the Northern Community of La Lush to help control the spread of cove in nineteen. The alcohol store will be closed for two weeks. To prevent people from gathering. There will be support for those at risk of alcohol withdrawal as of Sunday evening. Sixty eight thousand eight hundred and forty eight cases of covert nineteen in Canada with four thousand nine hundred and seventy deaths. I'm Jordan Heath Rawlings. This is the big story Max. Faucet is a writer and a reporter for many publications including on this project for the Walrus. Hey Max he joined our. I'm doing as well as can be expected. Which is how everybody should hopefully answer that question. These days you start by defining What is a universal basic income Broad is that term. And what does it mean? Sure so I mean you know this is an idea that's been around for some time now and and there can be competing definitions and I suspect. We'll get into that in a second but the one that I adhere to the one that you know certainly I informed Andrew Yang's campaign in the United States and that has been informing most of the conversation about UBA. Right now is It has three conditions it's automatic. It's unconditional in its non-withdrawal. So basically that means it comes every month doesn't matter who you are you get it. You could be making a lot of money or a little money and you get it. And then it's non withdraw so It's not means tested. So it doesn't get clawed back you know as you as you make more money you know. There's much conversation on you know econ twitter about various amendments and adjustments to that formula. But I think that's a good way to think about it. Can you give me a little history of it? You mentioned it's been around for a long time Has it been tried for real anywhere where to come from that? Depends on your definition of for real right. I think people look at the idea of giving people money from the government. And they think well this must be a left-wing idea but actually the first real experiments with it happened in the nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies and it was driven by a Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman. Who is the father of supply-side economics? Yeah they saw it as a way to replace the welfare system and so they their idea of a basic income is not quite the way I just defined it. It was something called a negative income tax. And so let me. Just get a tiny bit. Wonka share the way it worked in their conception is basically they would give people a percentage of the difference between their income and defined income cutoff or like the point where they start paying income taxes so if they set the cutoff at let's say forty thousand dollars and the negative income tax percentage was fifty percent. Someone who made twenty thousand dollars a year would get ten thousand dollars from the government. They made thirty five thousand they would get two thousand and from the government so is this sort of sliding scale where topped you up up until a certain point and then it went away right. They cancelled it in one thousand nine hundred and you know the the the Reagan era kind of buried it under under Nixon's legacy in Canada. Did something called the men come experiment? Which was the Manitoba Basic Income Experiment? That was more that was closer to the basic income that that I described earlier in the one that a lot of people are talking about right now so that says that gave thirteen hundred urban and rural families in Winnipeg and don't Fan Manitoba with incomes below. Thirteen thousand dollars a year back then money. But by the time that the data was collected in nineteen seventy eight so they ran up from seventy five to seventy eight. The Canadian government kind of lost interest in and they cancelled the project. So we've had these these aborted attempts to gather a sample and it hasn't really provided any conclusive evidence In the in the American one. There's some evidence that it that it you know Negatively impacted people's willingness to go to work in the Canadian won the data suggested otherwise. But there just wasn't enough data to conclusively determine the impact of giving people money on their both on their willingness to work and on on the outcomes that the government's wanted to test. Which is you know better. Health Outcomes Better Labor outcomes better social outcomes so you know the jury was still out right. Will what kind of a sample size and study length? Would you even need to determine that because again we had one or at least something like one here in Ontario Under Kathleen Wynne. A few years ago and the next government came to power and it was immediately phased out. So you know. I don't think we got more than two or three years out of that either. So what kind of scale are we talking about? Yeah I mean to make it work. You would needs multiple cities multiple tests populations and a long duration of study. This is this is a a bold policy intervention but you need to be able to control for extenuating circumstances and factors the Ontario project. Was it had some really promising results. As it turned out there was a study group at McMaster that basically interviewed the people that participated in the program. Some of the data they had eighty percent of of people reporting better health outcomes. They were using less tobacco drinking. Less eighty-three percent said they had better mental health. They were feeling less stressed. They had a better diet And there was even interesting. Data around better labor market outcomes people were basically using the minimum income the guaranteed income to improve their jobs to look for better job. So it's disappointing that the government scrapped it after basically what amounted to one year and left us in the same spot that we've sort of always been with these things where we just don't have enough data for either side to conclusively prove that their argument is right and you know maybe not maybe now is the opportunity to kind of walk in that that longer sample size but you know the problem here is that. It's always tempting for governments to to start these programs and then abandon them or different governments to come in and cancel them. You'd need some sort of agreement by all parties that they're going to let this run. Its course and we haven't really seen that yet. So you mentioned that it's seen mostly now at least as a left-wing idea might have begun under Nixon. But certainly I think that's how most listeners would frame it as you know Whether or not you support it About the side of the spectrum that it comes from but as we've started to see government's realizing how badly they need to help people as the economy collapses during this pandemic have seen any movement On the other side of the aisle towards this kind of idea I think we've seen much more movement on on the conservative side than we have on the progressive side the beano progressives are are are very wary of guaranteed income proposals because I think you know quite rightly they remember certainly the academics who studied this. They remember that it was originally an idea that was intended to get rid of welfare and other social supports and that is always a concern that if you bring in a guaranteed income. Is it really just an attempt to shrink? The size of the state is an attempt to get rid of targeted support programs that that make people's lives better and I think that's a totally valid concern when I when I posted my article from the wall or something twitter. I got a lot of feedback from economists about that where they basically said you know. Oh here we go again. People people don't realize that this is a an attempt to slip in through the back door reduction in social programs. That's really interesting. Yeah but you know. Over the last few months we've seen a really array of conservatives. Come out and say that this is a good idea. Hugh Seagull. Who is a former senator standing red? Tory I WOULD. I would describe him as a thought leader. He's been he's been banging the drum for for guaranteed income for quite some time now but he was always sort of out there in the wilderness as a conservative suggesting that this was a good idea and he wasn't one of the ones who was saying that it should replace social programs. He was saying it should be an augmentation to them but in the states over a matter of weeks you saw people like Mitt. Romney coup is basically the Avatar of hedge fund capitalism. Coming out and and suggesting that this was a good idea that would support. Americans during the fallout from Cova and ultimately Donald Trump's government. It's not it's not a permanent basic income. But they sent a check to every American and that is sort of one of the hallmarks of a basic income. So it's interesting the degree to which we've seen conservatives rally behind this particular policy flag. I think that it is driven by shorter. Term political objectives American politicians having election. That they're looking at in November and one of the surest ways to get defeated is to be in being government while people are losing their jobs losing their homes losing their livelihood so I think it's more self preservation than a genuine change of heart but in from a policy perspective. You take the support where you can get it and you build on it from there. So you know I think advocates of a U. UB. I should take their support and and leverage it in order to build their movement if you can may be explained to me the thought behind the benefits of this applying to absolutely everyone including people who have job because that's really And we can debate in Canada versus the US for however long. But that's that's like the primary difference between what trump's government has done and what Canada's done with the baby. Yeah that's the tricky part. That's the part that a lot of people struggle with conceptually and intellectually as is the idea of giving people who don't need money more money right. Yeah and Ken Boston cool. Who is is a former adviser to Stephen Harper and Christy Clark? He's been kind of driving the bus in Canada around the need for a UB. I you know he's he is preferred that to the more targeted approach that the government has taken with Serb. You know his idea in the short term is we just need to get money into people's hands right. Now we need we need to stimulate the economy and ultimately will tax it back next year on people's income taxes that's the thing about a guaranteed income in the context of the system. We have here is if you're making sixty seventy thousand dollars a year. This is going to a portion of this. We'll get taxed back right and so it's not. It's not really free money. It's a little bit of free money and I suspect there would be some social programs that would get pulled back a little bit to to make the numbers work but you know at the end of the day. I don't think you can let the weaknesses in the policy that that might impact a few people. Override the benefits that would impact far more people. You know there's there's all sorts of data out there that suggests that a basic income would actually stimulate economic growth. There's all kinds of data that suggested improves. Health outcomes and Lord knows improving. Health outcomes would save taxpayers and the government a lot of money. Because that's where an increasing increasingly large part of our social budget is going and we'll continue to go in the years and months to come so you know it it is It's a tough idea to get past for some people that I find working already. Why should I get more money from the government but that money's going back into the economy and it stimulating economic growth that supporting jobs? It's reducing healthcare costs. You know I think there's a pretty good case for it and and you know it's one that we should be willing to explore. I am I am more than open to criticism about the cost factor that I suppose we can get to that in a second but I think we also need to look at the benefits and look a little a little bigger in terms of where those benefits accrue it. It's not just lifting people out of poverty. Although that's that's an obvious benefit it's improving people's health outcomes improving their labor market outcomes. Let's people who have a

Canada Richard Nixon Ontario Cargill Cova United States Claire Schambori Quebec Provincial Parks Manitoba Mcmaster Twitter Winnipeg Jordan Heath Rawlings Quebec La Lush Alberta Kathleen Wynne
Binyamin Appelbaum On 'The Economists' Hour'

NPR's Business Story of the Day

05:18 min | 3 years ago

Binyamin Appelbaum On 'The Economists' Hour'

"Picture this in the early nineteen fifties. A young guy is working at a desk deep inside the federal reserve bank of new york. It's not exactly a corner office and he complains lanes to his wife that he has no future there at the fed. He's not a banker. He's not a lawyer. He is a lowly economist. That is what life is like for economists in the nineteen fifties. Nobody respects them in part. Just because <hes> economics was a new thing in the world the idea that people could manage economic conditions could improve economic conditions. These were new ideas in the world. I mean it's just stunning to think about that era. It was so different that is being you mean applebaum. He writes about economics for the new york doc times and he's written a new book called the economists our that traces what he calls a revolution in the way we think about economists this quiet but really important revolution solution that happens really beginning in the late nineteen sixties and the early nineteen seventies where economists begin to gain a tremendous influence over public policy in the united had states in fact that young economist told his wife he had no future at the fed that was paul volcker. He became one of a small group of economists who made themselves indispensable dispensable to u._s. Presidents voca rose to become the chairman of the federal reserve in the carter and reagan years so i asked applebaum had it a bunch of economists go from nobody's to being important people and he said it's pretty simple in an era of real economic problems. They promised solutions by the early nineteen seventies indies. It's really becoming clear that something is wrong. With the american economy people worry about their own future their children's future and economists enormously successful successful in asserting that they can fix the problem and their answer is basically that government needs to reduce its role in the economy <hes> that bureaucrats need to take their hands ends off the economy and allow markets to allocate resources government needs to trust in markets and this idea came from many economists but there was one economists in particular in your book you write about him a lot and that's milton friedman. Milton friedman have is very very simple idea that proved to be enormously sleep popular and along the way milton friedman became kind of a household name. He's a remarkable person he is this elfin libertarian who commands any room that he's in even though he's often the smallest person in the room and he's enormously successful essentially in in proselytizing this idea that that the solution to almost every public policy problem is for government to get out of the way and it has enormous appeal. I think in part because of its modesty. He's not saying milton. Friedman should be in charge of the economy. He's saying neither i nor anyone else should be in charge and for a generation that is confronting the failure of the economy. This has enormous appeal so at the heart of your thesis is not necessarily that milton friedman was correct you talk about these really negative unintended consequences that come from this idea that the market is always ace right in two thousand nineteen when we look back at the legacy of milton friedman and others like him with their faith in the markets. Where does that leave us now economist. It's really emphasized that there was a trade off between efficiency meaning getting the economy to grow as quickly as possible and equality meaning that everybody shared in the rewards awards prosperity and they argue that government needed to focus on efficiency that the goal of public policy should be to make the economy grow as fast as possible get as big as as possible but by ignoring inequality by deciding basically that government should stop trying to equalize the distribution of prosperity or the opportunities to to prosper <hes> it really contributed significantly to the rise of massive inequality in our society. You've been writing about economics for years and i wonder when you were researching shing this book. Were there any moments where you said oh. That's not what i thought it was. I'll tell you what i did not appreciate. When i started this process i did not understand the extent to which economists mist in the seventies were responding to real problems to a real breakdown <hes> in our system of governance and economic policy the extent to which these free market ideas really gained prominence and and popularity because of a broad perception that what we were doing had failed that is the thing that makes me want to spring to the defense of economists. I mean i was unaware unaware or only aware very vague sense that in the seventies this country hit inflation at like eleven percent twelve percent which is unthinkable now right. We haven't seen we haven't seen inflation like that in years. Our money has been stable in this country. There's so many other countries that don't have that luxury it makes me i think we don't these guys deserve a lot of credit for the fact that my dollar is going to be worth in a year about a dollar as opposed to seventy cents. I think they do deserve a lot of credit. I think it's a classic example of a revolution that went too far. The gains are real. The benefits real economists brought a lot of discipline to policy making ah in a lot of ways to improve the quality of public policy but by sort of embracing that idea to the exclusion of any other priorities by saying we're just gonna focus on efficiency by advocating for economists to take the wheel and excluding other points of view. We ended up in a really problematic place.

Milton Friedman Applebaum Bank Of New York New York Paul Volcker Chairman Of The Federal Reserv Shing Carter Reagan Milton Eleven Percent Twelve Percent
New Arizona law: No license needed for blow-drying, curling, shampoo services

Armstrong and Getty

04:29 min | 3 years ago

New Arizona law: No license needed for blow-drying, curling, shampoo services

"Y'all have been fighting against ridiculous regulations. Particularly in Arizona recently. Tell us all about it. Yeah. We actually we've had to really really wonderful victories recently one big one in one little bit fun one. So the little bit fun one is this in Arizona as in many states. You have to have a license to be. A makeup artist or a barber or 'cause Matala gist. And of course, to get that yson's can take thousands of hours in training and cost tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, it takes longer to become a licensed cosmetologist in Arizona, then to become an an airline professional airline pilot. Wow. Larry. I remember my my cousin was interested in being a cosmetologist. And for the first several months. She was working. She would just jab women right in the eye with the mask thing because she didn't understand. You're not supposed to jab people in the eye till she was taught. The absurdity of it all is that we all know that these licensing laws actually don't exist to protect the public in most cases, most of the time what they really are prohibitions on free economic competition that are in place to protect those who already have licenses against having to compete, but from others. And so I it's just like if WalMart were to try to outlaw target, you know, it could make a lot of money by doing that. And so a lot of the time businesses go to the government asked them to create these licensing laws so that they don't have to compete against people. So that they can then raise their prices. Well, it's become very fashionable in certain circumstances to have what they called blow dry bars, which is these are not barbershops. You don't get your hair cut there. But you get what's called a blowout. This is some this was all new to me being a man. This isn't something I have to deal with is something women. This isn't a Robert Kraft thing is that that owner who went to get the rub and tug in Florida, totally different. It's a different thing. Okay. Who knows why would these fads come and go, but the new thing is to have these the do your hair with just a blow dry well in Arizona that was illegal without a cosmetology license, God, cutting hair or or or shampooing you're eating like that. They're just using a blow dryer, and it's illegal to use a blow dryer without government permission in the state of Arizona as important constitutional issues at stake here. But so they just like wet your hair than it. They don't have necessarily wet. You're just they just blow it, and then comb it, and it makes it look in a different way. I don't know. This is magic in my breathing. Illegal pandas in the back or something that's the front. Exactly. Fortunately, the governor has just signed a Bill that says, no, you don't have to get government permission to use a blow dryer, and somebody's hair people already used blow dryers in their own homes. It's already you're allowed to use blow dryers, or I hair earns is in a demonstration in a store in a shopping mall in Arizona. So why can't we just allow people to do blow drying if that's something that people wanna do? Enter your controversial. This was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to pass in Arizona in recent years. I understand it didn't get a single democratic vote in the in the house or exactly right. The powerful cronies, and you wouldn't think that the cosmetology industry would be like this. But in fact, they are very powerful politically influential cronies in the state of Arizona. They lobbied hard to prohibit this because they don't wanna face fair economic competition. And I'm glad to say the good guys won. And the governor has signed that Bill. So Sean had the question. What's the stop them from blow dry? Buying directly into someone's eyes. And. Living together, mass hysteria. There was testimony in the state legislature that people would die if this Bill. Okay. So I the funny question, but the legitimate for people saying, well, maybe you maybe there should be a reason that a makeup artist gets a license. It is there a decent argument for that. No. I don't see one either. But and already let people you put makeup on themselves or their children or their loved ones at home. So if it's safe enough to do there, it also should be safe enough to do professionally if it's so dangerous, then you need to outlawed in the home. Also, we'll on a new and Milton Friedman was always making the argument, these one of my favorite writers of libertarian freedom and stuff is that even if you're going to have these sorts of things you don't want him to be government organization. Exactly. Because again government gets paid even

Arizona Bill Milton Friedman Walmart Robert Kraft Yson Larry Sean Florida Milton
A Brief History of Income Taxes

Michael Berry

05:09 min | 4 years ago

A Brief History of Income Taxes

"During World War Two the United States government needed to raise cash and fast. A team of experts that included an obscure young economists named Milton Friedman came up with income tax withholding. It was as one Senator put it the best way to quote, get the greatest amount of money with the least amount of squawks. Friedman who would go on to become the high priest of the free market and small government eventually appreciated. The irony of that statement, he didn't regret suggesting withholding as a wartime measure, but he spent the rest of his life lamenting its longevity in peacetime quote. It never occurred to me at the time that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large too intrusive to destructive of freedom. He wrote in his ninety eight memoir. Two lucky people yes- yet that was precisely what I was doing withholding numbs workers to the pain of their taxes as the treasury department website explained as recently as two thousand nine tax withholding quote, greatly eased the collection of the tax for both the taxpayer. And the bureau of internal revenue. However, it also greatly reduced the tax payers awareness of the amount of tax being collected. That is it reduced the transparency of the tax which made it easier to raise raise taxes in the future. Oddly, that fact sheet no longer appears on the Treasury Department's website. Withholding leaves naive taxpayers suffering from a kind of fiscal Stockholm syndrome. They actually celebrate when they get a tax refund. The way a broken hostage might thank a kidnapper who returns his property to him. A refund is when the government pays you back for the interest free loan it forced you to make in the first place. Congratulations, withholding is corrosive to democracy for many reasons. The unspoken assumption is that the government's needs are more important than yours. Withholding means we are in effect working for the government before we are working for ourselves. Worse since taxpayers are anaesthetised anesthetized to the pain of paying taxes. We're becoming evermore disconnected from the product we are buying. There's a reason tax day and election day or just about as far apart as possible why not make everyone write a check every quarter better yet make them write a check once a year. On election day. Not only would you get what you pay for. But comparison shopping works better when the price tag is in plain sight. With that in mind. I bring you this story media running profiles of angry people who are complaining that their tax refunds are smaller than past years. People angry at their tax refund is not what it was in years past. Any idea why that would be the case? Well, it doesn't matter. Mad at Trump. 'cause I like to get a big check from the government every year on my income taxes, and I use that to buy stuff. What if you didn't get a check at all? What if instead they didn't withhold more than you needed? And you got to keep your money throughout the course of the year. What if instead of taking your money, and then giving it back when they give it back. You say we got my body and got lines. What if instead they never took it in the first place? Ooh. Lacombe to take it and give it back to me. The Internal Revenue Service reported a thirty point six percent drop in the dollar amount of total tax refunds for the week ending February I compared with the same week last year now refunds have no bearing on your tax rate. Most people are keeping considerably more of their money than they were keeping before. However, they didn't change their withholdings. So you got to keep more on your check every month through the course of the year. But if you're that idiot who says I like when the government has to be a bunch of money at the end of the year, they're not handing you their money. They're handing you yours. So as a result the Trump tax cuts of Christmas a year ago. Are leaving people making more money through the end of the year. But wishing they could also get that big check you're doing better. But you don't even realize

Treasury Department Milton Friedman Lacombe Senator Internal Revenue Service United States Donald Trump Six Percent Milton
Should Big Tech pay more to help the homeless in San Francisco?

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

06:20 min | 4 years ago

Should Big Tech pay more to help the homeless in San Francisco?

"This. Marketplace podcast is brought to you by Colgate. University now in its bicentennial year. Colgate university is celebrating a proud tradition of intellectual rigor at it's beautiful campus in central New York. The deadline for early decision this November fifteenth. Learn more at Colgate dot EDU and by G, suite by Google cloud. A suite of cloud based productivity tools that includes g mail docs, slides sheets and drive. You can make real time updates to the same document without having to keep track of multiple versions. And since all the tools are cloud based your whole team can access the same document and work on the same page at the same time make it with G suite by Google cloud. Learn more at G, suite dot com. Does he oh of Salesforce says homelessness is his problem from American public media? This is marketplace tech demystifying the digital economy. I'm Ali would. In San Francisco next week voters will decide whether the city's largest companies most of them tech companies should pay tax that will raise money to help homeless. Families. Other cities have tried similar efforts voters in Seattle recently overturned attacks on large employers that would have funded affordable housing efforts. This city is biggest tech employer their Amazon strongly objected. But in San Francisco, the city's biggest tech employer is four the measure, Mark Benny off is the co CEO of Salesforce. And yes, the guy who just bought time magazine, he's stumping for the ballot measure called proposition c he said Salesforce recently held its annual dream force conference downtown and attendees from all over the world were horrified. I could tell you how many phone calls and emails and stories have had from people who had adverse interactions with homeless terrible situations with the cleanliness of our streets, including encountering human feces and other terrible things. And you just have to ask yourself. What has happened to our great city here? And that's why I'm supporting proposition c you know, in some ways a business tax in San Francisco is really attacks on the tech industry, which has come under fire for all kinds of problems, including the housing crisis and economic inequality. Do you think that's fair should this industry shoulder the blame for the homelessness crisis and other social problems in San Francisco or anywhere else? Well, I think you know, Salesforce is the city's largest employer, and we are also the largest company in San Francisco, we're doing just fine. Our companies worth about one hundred billion dollars other companies here at them all up its hundreds of billions of dollars and all of this. Well, it has been built on the back of our city. And the question is are you giving back to the city now in a New York Times op-ed, you argued that business half's to have a purpose beyond prophets. And that that can be good for business to the counter argument that you quoted was Milton Friedman saying that. Who get in on social issues can undermine the basis of a free society considering that we've seen a lot of CEOs across tech another industries get more involved in policy and CEO's like you and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg increasingly control methods of communication in the media. Can you see an argument for Friedman side, the idea of undermining the basis of a free society or unintended consequences at a minimum today? I could tell you that especially here in San Francisco, you cannot separate business from our city. You know, you can't tell me that this homeless problem is not my problem is the city's largest employer. It's my employees who don't feel safe going to our transit station. It's our customers. You don't feel safe coming to our conferences? So is this homeless situation somehow separate from my business? No the business of business is about the whole world. Mark Benny off is the founder chairman and co. CEO of Salesforce. Now, plenty of tech companies don't support proposition c lift stripe NBC funds acquire capital oppose it square and Twitter. CEO Jack Dorsey has also said it's not the right solution. And now for some related links related to the tech industry and social issues. Some two hundred Google employees plan to walk out of work today to protest how the company is handled sexual misconduct allegations a report in the New York Times earlier this week said Google had paid Android creator. Andy Rubin ninety million dollars to leave the company even though he'd been sleeping with multiple Google staffers and allegedly sexually assaulted woman. He was dating and after that came out the company put out a memo and said it had fired forty eight people for sexual harassment in just two years. Another one actually happened yesterday. A director at Google x is out. He was named in that time story about inappropriate behavior. None of those forty eight people got paid for leaving though. And then Tuesday in courts, the head of Google X gave this long interview about how he thinks that gender inequality is quote the single. Biggest fixable problem humanity has and he said men need to listen and change. So that's nice. I mean props for cleaning house or whatever. Okay. Totally other topic. Check out the latest episode of the podcast. Why'd you push that button from the verge, which is about my favorite topic group chats because you know, how I think they're actually the future of social networking, and I think apple needs to release. I message for everyone and be an actual Facebook competitor for the podcast has the director of product management for Facebook messenger. And as it turns out, according to a story in wired, Mark Zuckerberg said during Facebook's financial results, call Tuesday that the news feed will be less important and ephemeral stories and messenger, and what's up. We'll be more important. So the vision Facebook has pushed on us for ten years. A big huge comments full of people you barely know. Disagree with actually makes us feel bad about ourselves and gets boring really fast. And all we really wanted was a nice day place to talk to each other. And be friends. Glad to see that now. But, you know, props for cleaning house, or whatever I'm Ali would. And that's marketplace tech. This is APN.

Google Salesforce San Francisco CEO Facebook Colgate Mark Benny Mark Zuckerberg ALI New York Times Colgate University Ceo Jack Dorsey Milton Friedman New York Time Magazine Amazon Seattle Andy Rubin NBC