23 Burst results for "Milton Friedman"
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
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
"milton friedman" Discussed on What It Takes
"My lifetime. <Music> <Speech_Music_Female> One of Milton Friedman's <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> core tenants <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> was that you have to have <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> economic freedom <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> in order <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> to have political freedom <Speech_Female> though. He <Speech_Music_Female> warned that those <Speech_Music_Female> who are politically <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> free often <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> turn around <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> and destroy <Speech_Music_Female> their own economic <Speech_Music_Female> freedom <Speech_Music_Female> and he saw the United <Speech_Female> States which he <Speech_Female> labelled as fifty <Speech_Female> percents socialist. <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> <SpeakerChange> Going <Speech_Music_Female> down that path <Music> <Music> <Music> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Female> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Female> interviews <Speech_Music_Female> often <Speech_Music_Female> end with what's known <Speech_Music_Female> in the Biz as a <Speech_Female> softball question <Speech_Female> an <Speech_Female> interview or Jim Angle <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> had one ready. <Speech_Female> But in Classic <Speech_Female> Milton Friedman <Speech_Music_Female> Style. <Speech_Female> He swung and <Speech_Female> hit that softball <Speech_Female> with the plainspoken <Speech_Female> might <Speech_Male> of his <SpeakerChange> convictions. <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> Let me shift <Speech_Male> a little bit <Speech_Male> Ask You one last <Speech_Male> thing before we go. Why <Speech_Male> a young person <Speech_Male> why <Speech_Male> you're grandchildren <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> People <Speech_Male> who were coming <Speech_Male> into college in these <Speech_Male> days <Speech_Male> should be excited <Speech_Male> or interested <Speech_Male> in economics <Speech_Male> and public <Speech_Male> service. <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> I don't know what you mean <Speech_Male> by public service. <Speech_Male> What is public <Speech_Male> servicemen? <Speech_Music_Male> Tell me <Speech_Male> I <Speech_Music_Male> have somebody. A <Speech_Music_Male> young boy <Speech_Music_Male> who is working <Speech_Male> in the Safeway. <Speech_Male> Safeway Grocery <Speech_Male> store <Speech_Male> as <Speech_Male> a clerk is a NEAT performing <Speech_Male> public service. <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Male> What do you mean by public <Speech_Male> service? You mean government <Speech_Male> serves. <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> He should be disinterested <Speech_Music_Male> in service. <Speech_Music_Male> I would hope <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Male> he should be interested <Speech_Music_Male> in public service namely <Speech_Music_Male> what he <Speech_Music_Male> should really be interested <Speech_Music_Male> in <Speech_Male> is doing what <Speech_Male> will enable him <Speech_Male> as purse. <Speech_Male> You <Speech_Male> develop your own <Speech_Music_Male> capacities. <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Male> You do <Speech_Music_Male> what you WANNA <Speech_Male> do. <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> Don't do <Speech_Music_Male> anything because you think it's <Speech_Music_Male> going to help other people <Speech_Music_Male> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Male> because <Speech_Music_Male> you might be wrong. <Speech_Music_Male> <SpeakerChange> How <Speech_Music_Male> do you know <Speech_Music_Male> what's good for <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> other people? But you <Speech_Music_Male> know what's good for you? <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> You <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> know what you really <Speech_Music_Male> enjoy doing. <Speech_Music_Male> You know <Speech_Male> what your talents are. <Speech_Music_Male> And what your qualities. <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Male> You develop your own <Speech_Male> qualities in your <Speech_Male> own talents. In the summer <Speech_Male> of a lot of people <Speech_Male> doing that <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Music_Male> will be <SpeakerChange> a beautiful <Speech_Music_Male> society. <Speech_Music_Male> And <Speech_Music_Male> what about economics? <Speech_Music_Male> What <Speech_Male> is it about <Speech_Male> <Speech_Music_Male> Economics <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Male> that <Speech_Male> contributes <Speech_Male> to society as an <Speech_Male> individual's thinking <Speech_Male> about that as <Speech_Male> a career <Speech_Male> As a <Speech_Male> profession <Speech_Male> what is it <Speech_Male> that they will be <Speech_Music_Male> contributing? <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> It's very <Speech_Male> simple. <Speech_Male> Economists <Speech_Male> have <Speech_Male> regarded as one of their <Speech_Male> main functions <Speech_Male> over two hundred <Speech_Male> three more <Speech_Male> than two hundred years <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> to try to persuade <Speech_Male> people. That free <Speech_Male> trade is better than protectionism. <Speech_Male> I <Speech_Male> have never succeeded <Speech_Male> but <Speech_Male> yet if they had not been <Speech_Male> doing that. <Speech_Male> I'm sure we'd <Speech_Male> have a lot more protectionist <Speech_Male> than we do. <Speech_Male> Now I sound <Speech_Male> like one of these presidents <Speech_Male> of the Federal Reserve System. <Speech_Male> And I don't like that <Speech_Male> but <Speech_Male> I think it is true <Speech_Male> that <Speech_Male> we're not going to succeed. <Speech_Male> We're <Speech_Male> going to preach <Speech_Male> we're GONNA <Speech_Male> preach on the basis <Speech_Male> of what we believe <Speech_Male> to be <Speech_Male> real evidence. Ninety <Speech_Male> nine percent of the economists <Speech_Male> believe in free <Speech_Male> trade <Speech_Male> very little <Speech_Male> disagreement out. Now <Speech_Male> that's why I chose her <Speech_Male> and <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> we'll have a live. In <Speech_Male> fact <Speech_Male> put that little <Speech_Male> effect <Speech_Male> will pay our salaries <Speech_Male> and will <Speech_Male> more than compensate <Speech_Male> society <Speech_Male> for having <Speech_Male> provided us with <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> food and clothing and <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> housing a little <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> bit of <SpeakerChange> extra <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> for luxuries <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> economist <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> and Nobel laureate <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> Milton Friedman <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> speaking with the Academy <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> of Achievement. <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> In one thousand <Music>
"milton friedman" Discussed on What It Takes
"She the problem is the grady. One of the great economists in the nineteenth century was Alfred Marshall and he has as a sort of for one of his books the seen and the unseen. And it's a marvelous model for this. The most what happens in economics over and over again is that there are two sets of effects of action. The immediately visible effects and the widespread invisible fans and the widespread invisible facts are often much more important than the visible. But people don't see. Let me give you very simple examples. We have a quota on the amount of sugar that can be imported from various countries. The visible effect of that is it. There are about a couple of hundred thousand growers of each other. Who benefited greatly from it or able to keep on growing beet sugar. They don't benefit so greatly. Because most of the money goes into paying the expenses are growing beach and indeed. If there were no such quota they would find something else to do but who believe in the short appear. The visible effect is that they are able to have a market. They would otherwise not the invisible. Effec- is it. Every consumer in the United States pays twice as much for the sugar he or she buys as a world price. Now you're a consumer. How much attention. To the fact do you pay to the fact that you pay twice as much for sugar as you ought to is the fact that you pay twice as much sugar as you ought to going to lead you to go down to. Washington to testify against the Sugar Quota. But are the beet. Sugar farmers going to go down to Washington to testify in favor of the sugar corn. It's a typical example of the scene versus the concentrated visible versus dispersed invisible. And the major reason my roughly half the income of this country is controlled by governmental agencies. Instead of by the people who earn it is because of this contrast between the visible and the invisible. You're saying that governmental interference in the economy and management of things necessarily leads to vested interests. No is necessarily controlled by vested in. There's there's a pot of money there in every one of these coaches and just as beasts will go. Hunting people will go to parliament and the people will be most effective in getting control of that. Pot of money are people who are trying to grab it for themselves rather than people who are trying to spend it on behalf of somebody else. Everybody wants to spend somebody else's money and nobody spent somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. That's a fundamental principle. There's only one way in my opinion in which you can. You can exercise control over this process. And that's by effective constitutional limitation backed by public opinion. Not Backed by public opinion do no good limitation on spending no much broader than limitation on spending limitation on spending would be one step but much more broader limitation. We have free speech because of the First Amendment of the Constitution. I would be in our book free to choose. We listed the amendments. We'd like to see in the constitution. They're much broader than that. Such as Congress shall make no laws prohibiting any trades between consenting individuals with respect to goods at US legal to trade now that would eliminate all tariffs eliminate the sugar quota that. You may not see offhand that it would but it would if you think about it. A little because individuals include foreign individuals not only domestic individuals. So no I would really like much broader constitutional limitations than just an imitation on on. There are many other things you can think. For example you might have a constitutional amendment that nobody going to be elected to Congress and Senate unless he's more than sixty years of age that would eliminate the people the possibility of people being elected to Congress in order to be able to get benefits after they leave. Congress see that's the defect. I happen to be in favor of term limitation proposals simply. Because maybe that's a possible thing you can get but the defect determination proposals. You have young people who enter a congress and they're limited to twelve years old. Use those twelve years to get Brownie points with people on the outside. I'll give him a job later. So it'd be much more effective to limit the Legislation Though people are to make it a part time job or an unpaid job. Anyway there are lots of solutions. I'm not going to go through the solutions here. Instead Milton Friedman recommended that are interviewer Jim Angle and any other listeners. Who WERE INTERESTED GO? Read his books free to choose and the earlier capitalism and Freedom. You've talked about Various governmental approaches that you think are ineffective Sometimes worse than that. The one approach that you do think as effective and with which you are most associated is monetary policy. What is it that monetary policy does? No excuse me. You have misinterpreted my position. I would like to go to the Federal Reserve. I would like to have money to controlled by computer however that's not what's happening and I'm a realist. You're going to have a Federal Reserve system and therefore it's relevant to ask given that there is a Federal Reserve system even though it'd be a better world if we could get rid of them. How should Federal Reserve Opera? So I've been concerned with monetary policy by trying to see how to make it less harmful than it is likely to be. I don't WanNa Surrey government. It's necessary there are certain things that it is essential for government to do. I'm not an anarchist. I believe in government but limited government and the government should be limited in my opinion to very simple function Friedman listed just for that this criterion one defending the country against foreign enemies to protecting individual citizens from abuse by other citizens policing in other words three defining and enforcing rules for private property and four Adjudicating Disputes Aka the judicial system but going back to monetary policy what is monetary policy concerned with. Its concerned fundamentally with what happens to the quantity of money much money. There's no again no natural definition of money the first thing money is whatever you use to engage in transactions. Whatever it is that people are willing to accept not because they want it but because they know that somebody else will accept it in return for something they want. There's an island in the Pacific which uses great big stones as money the gap but of course the most the thing that has mostly been used as money. Historically been silver and gold. But we've gotten beyond that and now we use we use pieces of paper and the question is who determines how much money there is and the answer is in the present system. There are eight There are nineteen people who sit around a table in Washington once every two weeks who have the power unlimited power to double the quantity of money over the next year or cut it in half over the next year. Those nineteen people are the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and the twelve presidents of the Federal Reserve banks of the Regional Federal Reserve Banks. Only five of those twelve presidents have a vote on that open market committee anytime but all twelve attend every meeting and influence the action that occurs. They have the unquestioned power to do this and it was a way. They exercise that power during the Great Depression that was responsible for the depth of the depression. It was a way they exercise that power during the nineteen seventies that was responsible for the inflation during the nineteen seventies and is fundamentally responsible for the savings and loan debacle so how they exercise. Power makes an enormous amount of difference and in my opinion I shouldn't say opinion. The Federal Reserve over the whole of its existence has done much more harm than good. In Bad Times they sail. Times are bad. In spite of us. We did everything we could to offset it. Even in depth of the Depression in nineteen thirty two and thirty three. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board was saying you cannot imagine how much worse things would have been if we hadn't done our duty but Alan Greenspan for is a first chairman of the Federal Reserve public testimony before said we may have made a mistake and I give him very high marks for that so as I say this has been a system.
"milton friedman" Discussed on What It Takes
"And another organization will be set up to do what it was supposed to do. That is this case. The Federal Reserve System was established. Prevent the bank kind of bank runs and bank failures that happened during the Great Depression but they made it worse much worse by by not doing what they were setting up to do. They were supposed to provide liquidity and instead they reduced quantity the quantity of money in the United States fell by a third nineteen. Twenty nine and nineteen thirty-three the Federal Reserve System at all times during that period had the power to prevent that decline and it was established for the purpose of preventing that from happening. It didn't do it and so what happened. Federal Reserve System wasn't abolished unfortunately but the federal deposit insurance was created to do what the Federal Reserve System had been supposed to do to prevent bank runs. There's as you well know. There was a famous saying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And that's the case. Almost all government programs are started with good intentions but when you look at what they actually achieved. There's a general rule. Almost every such program has results that are the opposite of the intentions of the well-meaning people who originally backed I say well mini because every such case there are people who are doing it because they believe would be good for the country. Unless you have some people like that. It's hard to get anything through on the other hand. It's also hard to get through television court at people who can see how they personally can benefit from having that policy put into effect and in some cases the results not an all but in some cases the results do coincide with their expertise. But they're almost always the opposite of the intentions of the well-meaning people now I don't believe that's a general skepticism about everything I think that's rather You know the old American saying I'm from Missouri. Xioaming I don't want to go ahead on promises you WanNa look at what actually happens. The real effects of real policies on the one hand and the deserve to see what actually happened as opposed to what people say. I never argued. The government initiatives may not be just as good as private initiatives. The problem with government is not in the things that tries but in the absence of any mechanism for recognizing error. The what you need the private system bouncing its survival of the fittest. What the governmental system abounds in is expansion of the mistakes. You're saying that the free market is a harsh master. That if you fail you fail absolutely you bear the consequences of your own action now. We don't have a free market. Don't kid yourself. And the biggest enemies of a free market. The two biggest enemies of the free market are two separate groups. My academic colleagues and businesspeople their business people are enemies of free markets. Not Friends they The the academic people are all in favor of freedom for themselves. They want to be able to say what they want right. What they want to whatever research they want but they're all against freedom for everybody else. They think they know better. What's good for the poor people and the poor people do? They think they can run the economy better than the businesses can. The businesspeople are just the opposite. They're all in favor of freedom for everybody else and at the drop of a hat you can get any leading businessmen to give you an eloquent speech on the virtues of free market but when it comes to their own business they wanted to go down to Washington and get a special tariff to protect their business. They want a special tax deduction they want a tax subsidy. When Chrysler is on the verge of SA- failing which it should have done it should have been allowed to fail. Chrysler goes down and exercises political influence. Try to get the government to lend money to subsidize so businessmen in general not all our enemies a free market. The real beneficiaries of free markets are the invisible man smoke small the consumer. What Nouri Worker? Those are the real people who benefit from free market. But unfortunately they don't have the kind of political clout that PAC political action committee from big business has or then. Well you see you know about the Keating five. It's an excellent example. The point I'm trying to make people will always say in these circumstances the government needs to come in in a crisis like this because it's necessary to save jobs they always say there but the actual effect is almost always to lose job to save them. I shouldn't put it on. The effect is to save some jobs at the expense of losing.
"milton friedman" Discussed on What It Takes
"Activity which began fairly late. So far is my. My career is concerned. It has been trying to influence public policy. That's been ideological concern not simply with abstract ideas but also with values that's course it's a second part of my life which has received more public attention for which if you ask people about me they probably know more people know about that aspect of my life but it has been sort of you. Ask My hobby. That's sort of been a hobby of fun as it were and avocation. My real vocation has been scientific economics positive economics. People get a great misconception about economics. They think of what the devil if. They're economists in a room. There three ideas. That's wrong on the great bulk of issues. Most economists agree. But you don't talk about the things you grab in what gets into the press. What'S NEWSWORTHY? Or the disagreements out the agreements and where are the disagreement on those parts of the discipline? That are least well developed that you know least about I have been I have often had young people who became very much interested in economic policy who wanted to vote their life to promoting what they thought with the right policies and I have always advised. Look that's all right as an avocation. But don't do that as your vocation you've get to do something and earn your living on something which you enjoy doing. But which is non ideological non policy oriented and then do the rest of the sideline. Because if you want start going along the other line sooner or later your lose your sense of objectivity here going to become a kind of a fanatic pure ideologue. You're not gonNA have this balanced tour which you WanNa have if you want to keep yourself open minded person. So you're saying that that one must be wary of Of making a career out of ideology because you become all and no facts. That's partly that and partly. You're very much dependent on the kind of sources of income that you don't want to become dependent on because you will find you have special Who will support you? As long as your ideological preconception meets their special interest. But they won't have anything to do it if it doesn't and therefore if you're trying to make your living that way you're always having to come up against a situation where you have to decide whether you're in a sacrifice your principles. Maybe all bend the little in this direction. Because that way I'll be able to push my other idea. People don't realize how hard it is to have truly free speech. I've often that the only people who have real honest to God freedom of speech or tenured professors on the verge of retirement or who have already retired and have an independent income like myself but I think one of the most precious things in life is to be able to say what you believe freely and openly without having to worry too much about the consequence say too much. I don't believe that it ought to be cost. Lewis if you're gonNA say on popular things and you're going to become unpopular as a result that's gonNA impose a cost but you shouldn't be prevented from expression you shouldn't be prevented from expressing it You shouldn't most important hall. You Watch important not only freedom to speak freedom to listen if a professor says something and of course that other people don't like they come in and disrupt the course so that nobody can listen to them the people that want to hear them can't hear them and I think that's absolutely disgraceful. In fact I think the most important single virtue human virtue is tolerance and tolerance grows out of humility. If you really believe that you have the truth the truth the ultimate truth you can't. How can you tell her? How could you let anybody said if you really know what's happening is can you let them know so? The source of tolerance is the recognition that none of the truth now a lot of the criticism that you have taken during your professional career for that ideological part of your life has been from people who would suggest And who were probably irritated because they thought you were saying you knew the answers. Of course I know the answers. I don't deny that but I don't have any right to make you agree with me. All I have the right to do to present as best. I can my side of the case and to try to persuade you. Of course I I know the answers but I also know they may be wrong and if you can persuade me. They're wrong then. I'll gladly shift my view. The point is no we never can know for certain when I say if you print a lot of money. You're going to have inflation. That's it injection and I will continue to believe until it's refuted by some evidence but it's not an absolute truth. How much confidence you having? A conjecture will depend on how often you'll have had evidence supporting it and most important how often it has had the opportunity to be refuted without having been refuted. Let me ask you in that vein. How you came to have such strong views about government interference in the economy. Were were there any personal influences personal experiences. That weren't influence. And you're thinking or was it largely result of academic insights into what has happened? The latter so far is my personal experiences concerned. As I mentioned before the new deal was great. There was a great Benefit to the new deal gave me my first job after in fact The new deal as I say may well have been harmful for the economy but it was very beneficial for me. I got a job there or more money I'd ever and before was able to work on things. I was interested in was able to write some articles that were published and establish a little bit of a scientific reputation and again after I left Washington in the Mid Thirties. I went back during the war worked at the Treasury for two years from forty one forty three which is a mathematical statistician for two years from forty three to forty five so that I personally have been a beneficiary of governmental activity. So there's nothing personally whatsoever. It's entirely a result of what I believe is evidence and analysis theory and analysis. It was the depression which you mentioned again here. A moment ago was a time of economic and personal tragedy absolutely and the federal government Came to the rescue. Some extent stepping in to create jobs to help people through that time. As you've said you have where you've got one of your early jobs but you hate government management of the economy but let's look at that depression at all more. The depression was caused by government. It was a result of bad government. It was a result of government action to not work in the way they were intended to the Federal Reserve System was established in nineteen fourteen for the purpose of preventing things like the Great Depression and yet its existence was responsible in my opinion for the depths of the depression so that you cannot look the after effect without looking at what came before given that you made the terrible mistakes that led to the Great Depression. I have never criticised the remedial actions that were taken immediately thereafter to help the people who were so badly hurt. That was a desirable thing and it was a reaction to the bad things about the new deal. We're not those. The bad things about the new deal was not works. Progress Administration which offered temporary jobs a civilian conservation corps. That was not the bad things. Those were good the bad things about the new deal where the more permanent changes and introduced in the institutions of the country. One of them has recently come home to roost in the federal savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. That's a strict new deal consequence that was established. Well why was it established if a private organization makes a mistake? Does things badly. It will lose me and we'll have to go out of business if a public organization does things badly and governmental organization does sing buried. Leeann bakes bad mistakes. It will be expanded. It will be expanded because they'll say well all because we just didn't have enough resources to it or else it will be to stand.
"milton friedman" Discussed on What It Takes
"Down the street and you buy some strawberries. You think you've been many strawberries that you want at the price posted and you're right but muscles everybody. In the country tried to buy more strawberry. There wouldn't be any more Stromberg. The total quantity has strawberries fixed. Price would have to go. This is Milton Friedman the most influential economist of the second half of the twentieth century. So from the point of view of the individual the quantity is variable and the practice fixed for everybody together but quantity is fixed and the prices vary and what's true for. Strawberries is true for almost everything you can think of. And that's why in my opinion ordinary people are so subject to economic fallacies because they tend to extrapolate from what's true for them as an individual for what's true for everybody and almost always. That's a long extrapolation Milton. Friedman was the chief evangelist for Free Market Economics and small government. He died in two thousand six at the age of ninety four when the great recession hit the following year. Economists policymakers and think takers argued. What WOULD MILTON DO? Then the government bailout came and some said it was totally consistent with Milton. Friedman principles others called it the end of the age of Friedman. Well we're now looking at a two point. Two trillion dollar stimulus package in response to the unprecedented havoc of covert nineteen. Seem like a good time to go into the Academy of achievements audio vault and pull out this conversation with Milton. Friedman recorded in Nineteen ninety-one. You can listen and decide for yourself. This is what it takes from the Academy of Achievement. I'm Alice Winkler at this. Child is gifted and I heard that enough that I started to believe if you have the opportunity not a perfect opportunity and you don't take it you may never have another child it all so clear. It was just like the picture started to form itself. There was new. Each ally could prevail over the truth darkness over light over life every day. I wake up and decide today. I'm going to love my life. Decide assist if they're gonNA break your leg when you go into play. Stay out of there and then along companies differential experiences. But you don't look for you. Don't plan for the boy. You better not miss him. Milton Friedman was a conservative libertarian. An ardent believer in small government and individual responsibility. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in nineteen seventy six. What fascinates me so about economic system. Is that the fundamental principles are so simple you feel as if anybody can learn in two days. Basic Fundamentals of economics very simple. Elementary Principles of economics are are trivial. People can spend their own money more carefully than they'll spend anybody else's buy low sell high. Go Down the principles very simple and yet it seems to be so hard for people to understand and people so often get them wrong and the major reason they do and this is what is really fascinating. Is it almost always? What's true for the individual is the opposite of what is true for everybody put together even. The economists who strongly disagreed with Milton Friedman's conclusions about inflation and unemployment and a range of economic factors. Agree that his research and analysis were groundbreaking and maybe a little more complex than he's letting on here. His ideas altered the economic policies and public policies of governments around the world including our own reaganomics. That was largely Friedman onyx and his beliefs helped reshape eastern bloc countries after the fall of Communism. So where did this giant among intellectuals get his start in a family of poorly educated immigrants who ran a dry goods store? That's where and that's where we'll begin tale. I knew I like mathematics tonight. It was pretty good at mathematics and I was an ignorant boy in a small town in a family. That never had anybody gone to college. I didn't know what use mathematics for and the only thing I could find out was that it was used in the insurance industry. Somehow Milton Friedman's parents emigrated from Central Europe. As so many Jewish refugees did at the turn of the twentieth century. They met as teenagers in New York. Gave birth to their son Milton in nineteen twelve and moved to rockaway New Jersey for this conversation with the Academy of Achievement. Friedman spoke with Jim Angle the former correspondent for NPR ABC CNN and Fox. Jim Milton Friedman whether he could remember a particular experience that opened his eyes to the possibility of a life of the mind. That's a very very hard thing to say. I had a Teacher in high school. Who was really. Somehow I think he taught government or political science. Something like that. Whatever you call them in high school but he also taught Euclidean geometry playing geometry simply because he liked to such a beautiful intellectual discipline and I took His Kirsch and one point or another. He got rhapsodised about the beauty of geometry and he quoted. The last lines of Keita's owed to a gross. Earn truth is beauty. Beauty is truth. That has all you know. And all you need to know in those two lines stuck mates with me. I was about probably twelve or thirteen at the time and I have talked with me ever since because they so much reflected the sort of feeling I had about the geometry as well and about mathematics in general that its appeal as one of beauty kind of an intellectual purity and beauty. Now that was. I'm sure that that was what drove me direction thinking I wanted to make math. Mathematics my My lifetime we're what did your parents think When you've I told them that you're interested in mathematics or even when you start to become interested in economics well first of all I have to separate out My father died when I was thirteen years old. So my mother was a very intelligent able but She was not intellectual. My father was not an intellectual. Neither one of them ever gone well. It's factor adopted. Either one of them had ever gone through anything beyond elementary. They knew how to read and write but they were in small private business. My we had a small retail store at the time that my mother ran and that was the source of livelihood and also was a source of enormous aggravation because you were always owing more money than you had funds to pay what I would say that by today's standards. My parents in the whole of their life never had an income that came anywhere close to what we now regard as a poverty low and yet they never regarded themselves as poor because they were self sufficient. They might be difficult economic straights. We never had any great luxury or anything but we always had enough to eat. We always were clothed so that we were not a scandal for a shame on the community and none of us would have said. We were poor but they were not intellectuals in any way and it wouldn't have occurred to them to comment on my interest in mathematics or economics because that wouldn't have been meaningful to them. We people like me were of new generation. We were in a different world. It wasn't their world world. I had gone up. Had been altogether different world and so if I had said to my mother you know. I'm going to be interested in mathematics. She would've said what's that not an let me emphasize it was not because they were uninterested or unwilling to make sacrifices not because they didn't value intellectual activities very highly but because they were not sophisticated but willing to support you. Whatever whatever you wanted to do because they trusted your judgment in those areas far more than they did their own. A lot of people have brains and potential and work hard. Not everyone is as successful as you have been How do you account for your success? Luck chance people grossly underestimate the role luck and chance in people's lives. If the United States in the eighteen eighty s and eighteen nineties had had the kind of laws that has now my parents would never been able to come to the United States. They would not have gotten visas. They would not have gotten in there if they had met and got married. They would have been In where they came from an area of when they left it was Hungary austro-hungary. They had been unable to come to the United States. If they had stayed there and gotten married Darren. I was born and all that I'd now be a citizen of Russia. Pure chance I had nothing to do with it. One.
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" Discussed on The Candace Owens Show
"Like, he doesn't coffee man has no idea. What's going on? On right. Research positions. I try to be moderate getting booed like student clocking. And so I would love to see both Howard Schultz and mayor Bloomberg. And even Tom star have a billionaire contest of who could finish third in Iowa. I love it. I love this goes right into the next question. I think pretty well. Are there any areas where capitalism does not work? I think I think capitals miss wrongly blamed for certain societal injustices. The answer is are there extra analogies in a market that sometimes need to be addressed answers? Of course. Of course. I am not an anarchist capitalist. I am not some people are not nor was Milton Friedman. There's certain people that wrote on anarchy capitals throughout the twentieth century. I am not one of those people. So you both believe in in the Sherman antitrust act, right? Exactly. I mean that shows you crab. Eliza goes too far in that. We don't have limited government, which we do believe in turning point. You say we believe in small government to protect us from you know, this radical radical capitalism, which is what when the the Barron robbers, and they were able to create these monopolies which people out in the to actually isn't fair capitalism. Total guy can't compete with the big guy because they just keep sweeping up. All the smaller comes at ya. And I don't think we should worship. Capitalism. I think we should have have reverence for markets, right and markets. So markets are embedded in the markets. Entrepeneurship? That's and so whenever petition right? So let's Google for example now and be broken up. I agree with you. So why would why do we want that? Well, first of all the Sherman antitrust act, you went after standard oil for owning forty seven percent of the oil market. Okay. Prices were going down and all that. But still they said there was something wrong with that. I agree that okay? Google has eight percent of the search market, right? I don't know how they're not being touched preview is fighting like hell against and good. Good for you, guys. That's why left Gregory and up to two Google is a big deal. So sort of to if you believe in equal application of a law, which is a conservative Allieu, it shouldn't be like. Okay. Standard oil and Microsoft in the nineteen nineties. You remember Microsoft went through a huge antitrust lawsuit against apple and essentially they were broken up to give money to apple and actually led to the rise of of apple significantly in the nineteen ninety s. Nevertheless, I think here's what I will say though, I will say capitalism gets blamed for a lot of the of cronyism, right? Yes. I will say apple totally against Kony against it. Right. And so the left will misrepresent capitalism as cronyism right inside our access deals. We hate inefficient corporation. St. bailing out the auto industry and bailing out the banks it totally against it. And by the way, I think that some of the Wall Street bankers based on the laws that are Richard went to prison..
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
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
"milton friedman" Discussed on 760 KFMB Radio
"Of the day from Milton Friedman hero of small government, low taxes type every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp by the visions of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. I'd agree with that. I don't want that world. Let's see. Oh, yes. An ongoing, and we get these every day ongoing bit of testimony in the my phone is listening to me right situation. This one's good. I'm gonna keep you on on a I just don't want any trouble in your life. How old uncle Joe looking out for you, my friend, you'll understand when I read it to you got told by my soon to be ex wife at lunch today that she has an S T D. Say this again, apparently, she has moved on got told by my soon to be ex wife at lunch today that she has an S T D. Why would she tell you that unless she thinks you have it too? Maybe she is being very responsible and says, I don't know exactly when I got it some she was engaged in more than one relationship at the time. Would you want to go there? The only reason you would care. Bring any of these people are already going through otherwise you just say sorry to hear that good luck with that. And unless they're still friends and she says, yeah, I'm divorce has taken awhile. And she says, yeah, I've got the dating world's great. I got the clap who knows maybe their friends. They share sorry to hear that you whore. I mean, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say that what? Wow. Well at any rate, so they had this conversation at lunch. And he says I get this advertisement on Instagram later that night. What are the chances? I've never looked up the stuff in my life. And it is get ten dollars off my lab. A safe is sexy STD chest. I don't know. I've sent I've signed my friends up for things like that. I wonder if because the. The rights you sign the privacy. I should say you sign away is extensive does Instagram look at all of your contacts. Your most often used contact and say all right ex wife, lady, you're looking at the clap tests. Let's send it to your closest context too. Because you're all into similar stuff. That would not shock me at all. On the other hand, it also wouldn't shock me. If the guy's phone is listening to them. Sorry to hear your ex has a social disease though. Wouldn't you want to say to your ex-wife house about you don't go having sex with? Diseased people and have sex with me. What? You go unspoken. Obviously unfortunate. Nobody's happy. But he's pleased say, that's unfortunate. Let's see the problem. I have here is a. Said this many times, I'll say it again, the fact that Google Facebook, whoever can listen. And that they wouldn't even though it would benefit them. I find hard to believe so stretch it is a stretch given their history the truth. Oh shit sets. The truth is a good thing. We are clearly incapable of saying.
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.
"milton friedman" Discussed on The Fifth Column
"So Laura Ingraham try. Backtrack it away overnight saying it was about the border, say a word, listen. I know her, I thought, well, if are in the past that was racial, she listen. If she wants to talk about the border. She wants to talk about security if she wants to talk about terrorism, she wants to talk about anything. She's welcome to do that. She did not mention any of that stuff in that thing. She talked about demographic change period. It doesn't matter if you're smart. If you're good, if you're law buying whatever the demographics the racial demographics are the issue. There's no other explanation for the word demographic. And so that does not sound like anything but white nationalism. And I live, I don't like come out here and fan, that kind of stuff because I always look for a better explanation if I can find it and you know, I do. There is no other explanation for her, her comments. Then she's talking about the changing racial makeup. Now. Listen concerns always tell me, we're colorblind. We don't see color. Why do you guys always raise the issue. See raise the issue with no even pretense that there was some other dog whistle this. You're seeing now mainstream media adopting the rhetoric and the rationale of white nationalism and nobody's doing anything about it. This is one of the worst things I've seen on cable television, and he said explicitly that she didn't mention anything about it, not involving race. She didn't say this was about economics. She said demographics. No, actually, she said both. She said Adam Smith. She mentioned the federalist papers, and she said twice in those remarks that this isn't about race, and I'm I, what that brought to mind for me was actually Milton Friedman who Milton Friedman is a hero of my own. His perspective was that he was anti welfare state and pro immigration. In fact, pro illegal immigration. And I'm remembering a quote where he talked about the fact that illegal immigration really good for America mostly. Primarily because it's a legal which is a little bit nuanced, but went on to talk about the fact that he had concerns about the welfare state. And was there seems to be a general concern amongst some people on the right who are anti immigration who are restrictice that if in fact, people come from other parts of the world that don't share our values with respect to free markets and stuff that they could come and have an impact on our politics. And it seemed to me that that was very, obviously a prominent feature of what she said. She did say that other total bullshit about the criminals that she did hint at that. She not even hint. She said it, they can be wrong about that..
"milton friedman" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM
"Hello, everybody Mark Levin. Here our number eight seven seven three. Eight one three eight one one. Eight seven seven. Three eight one three eight one one I think this is an important discussion it's frustrating as it can be. You can tell, I've been taking callers who Disagree with me And I'm just starting to wonder if there's enough of us who really believe in liberty and individualism And free will Capitalism I think there's a lot of forces arrayed against us We now have. So many people who are subsidized by the federal government With so many people who want. To be subsidized by the federal government and that's what tariffs are about We have indoctrination that's taking place and our universities and colleges away from, liberty and capitalism toward the opposite And there's a general lack of knowledge and education about our principles And you're not getting a lot, of it on conservative, talk radio what you're, getting a lot of, although you get some there's some excellent hosts that's not my point but as a rule you're getting People who read websites. And just go through, the news The purported news People who are incapable of. Discussing these issues We're seeing that on television too And so they're just, not discussed and they're not debated and you have people who are frayed maybe the lose, ratings lose some of. Their listeners some of their, viewers they won't get the hits look at some of these new conservative websites and some of. The weird stuff that's on them and that weird stuff is on there because they want. People to click onto those links To drive up their equivalent of ratings in order to Charge higher advertising fees That's, okay that's capitalism But what I'm. Saying is A lot of this stuff that Milton Friedman we'll talk about or that Adam Smith wrote about and so forth is. Now missing from the culture People are reading less The culture is becoming more and more Distant From our founding, principles And so you have people who are saying they're conservatives even though that's, really in some respects an. Imprecise word but concerned but then when you really, peel back their positions they're not Either, they have conspiracy theories that. There's a couple of corporations controlling the company they, country or Or Governing, independence economic independence depends on trade simply with an among Americans It's crazy Absolutely outrageous. I think and I've talked about this with you and I've written. About it I think progressivism has clearly conquered the, democrat party but it's conquering the. Republican party It's conquering the Republican party And then you had, an Obama supporter calling up. Say healthcare is a right I don't even, know? What? That means healthcare right, why because Bernie Sanders says so How can healthcare be a right one other human, beings are involved and they. Would have to be enslaved to provide that, right? They? Have choices too don't, they They have. Choices too You have the. Right to purchase healthcare You have the, right not to be denied health care If you pay for it Don't have the right to healthcare That's a that's the and yet that phrase is extremely appealing to most Americans Wage, disparities well of course there's, wage disparities your free it's called capitalism of course there's, ways to spend well the GAP's getting bigger and bigger and bigger among home the more illegal. Immigrants and even legal immigrants who led into the, country the poor they are so you get a bigger and bigger wage gap but what. Does that, have to. Do with anything doesn't affect my life or your life The issues what your wage what's your income? What do you do at your money Not the, guy next door?.
"milton friedman" Discussed on AM 1590 WCGO
"Lost letting under milton friedman i was still a marxist but one somewhere working in the government was enough to start returning around really what they happen to me but i realized that the government was nowhere close to being capable of doing but people on the left wanted the government to do and in fact we'd be lucky if they didn't make things worse in the labor department and they administered the minimum wage law to me the question was that minimum wage laws make poor people better off or worse off the question for them the minimum wage law provided one third of the total budget and they weren't going to look at this and then this other way and as i tried to get into the question does this caused unemployment and stuff like that there was no enthusiasm whatsoever for that whole line of reasoning books about people you call the anointed basically liberals in american society what are you what are you what do you mean by calling them annoyed at or self anointed plus right there are people who seriously believe that they are wiser nobler than others the way to improve society to have the government force people to follow what the anointed want rather than have let people what they wanna do and there are all kinds of that follow in the wake of this kind of this kind of notion conservatives are routinely blamed for not caring about people and yet you say just the opposite is true that it it's liberals who care about their vision of how the world should be but not about real life human beings absolutely i think the bussing thing was a classic example you'd be hard pressed to show how black people or any other benefit about this but the liberals mother label them to be morally superior to those real fighting and the evidence one way or the other really did not interest that aren't the conservative freemarket ideas sometimes hard to sell i think of the the labor unions and liberals are now attacking walmart and saying walmart pays its employees too little i mean that's a nice thing to before you know you want more money for people who work at walmart what's wrong with that hey i want more money for myself i would that doesn't mean that.
"milton friedman" Discussed on WDRC
"Taxes taxes stumpel issue milton friedman that it best reduce taxes anytime whenever you care for whatever reason that's just the way i see people need to earn and keep more over their money because that is a liberty interest you have an economic interest in the fruits of your labor so when you work at a government they take what is essentially yours and then they tried to get it back to you in the form of grants programs it's a very inefficient function with allow people to keep more of their money when it comes to live the same principle applies looks conservatives value individual dignity every individual has a right to live on the beach treated with respect that includes the four now what else can we do to help you out well let's say just spread the good word ramified it's going to be a long fight and we're up against an incredible machine think about this for a second laura mitch mcconnell i go back to him only because he's already sold grains in this race he's he's already got his own campaign manager down here running truth campaign can you imagine that so the swamp she has already on the mississippi trying to influence our electorate and tell people just what a terrible guy i really really simple if i'm such a bad guy that while won't roger wicker debate me if i'm such a bad guy what mitch mcconnell debate anytime anyplace anywhere conservative principles matter the constitution matters we're gonna fight for it one way or the other today he holds a seat in the mississippi state centers senate and we'd like to see him in the united states senate chris it's a pleasure to have you on thanks so much loss.
"milton friedman" Discussed on WAFS Biz 1190
"Day his name was milton friedman and he wrote a book capitalism and freedom in that book was published a 55 years ago in that's basically what we just heard from gary i mean it was his sort of it in it is right out of it in this now milton frame freeman summed it up in a how basically gary was summing it up is that in you use the japanese as an example that's what milton friedman use he looked at japanese they want to bring to us all of these really cool things like motorcycles and televisions in in in these cheap cars and all of that in we should welcome them as gifts because you don't give the more paper in this papers is basic just paper they want to give us all these really good things that we could use in our lives in we're gonna give them this paper and after all they can't live in it they can eat it they can't wear it they're gonna chewy all of this paper in then the mechanism of world trade is going to kick in so since they can't use all this paper they're going to have to send it back to us and by all of our really cool things but the healing going to partially right yes they did send it back but they didn't by our our merchandise they bought her debts they bought our debt and that's what i call morphine economics you know you have all this debt running around in america and in fact gary brought up about the dead as well he said he look you know they come over here news all of this capital surplus the by things like our debt well that debt is putting enormous pressure on our an on our future honored children imagine if they called in that i mean this ironically eclampsia that does this year that's the morphine and i'm talking about you know that you the wall it's this allusion that we have with this debt that we're getting better that were getting stronger but no it's killing us neil making is weaker if that's what the effect of north morphine is on your body it's a it's the effect of morphine economics on our economy that's the whole point it makes you feel better but it doesn't accomplish anything you get nowhere with that listen i'm calling it.
"milton friedman" Discussed on Tara Brach
"Then there's classicism and these are all intersecting importantly and there we have the mess that the deserving those that are wealthier deserving because they do this hard work and those that aren't or lazy or not so deserving neck courses overlooking how hard it is to break out once once somebody has money they can perpetuate with money and keep building with the myths come the pride of wealth and the shame of not wealth and of course there's a lot of gradation another story for you milton friedman friend of my friend jack cornfields many you've heard of what one time this this milton friedman was a washington speechwriter he worked in the carter white house he was a different than the milton friedman who is the nor nobel laureate economist two different milton friedman said okay so here's the story melton jacks friend received a call one day and this is during a time when the economy was in a downturn there are deep concerns in financial circles that the recession was just around the corner gets a phone calls this milton friedman yes it is color goes on to explain that he's a he was the controller for an organization that manage several billion dollars of church finances and wanted to know if friedman might have any suggestions as to where the money might be safely and wisely invested so after listening to the story freeman replied have you considered giving the money to the poor.
"milton friedman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Is could you do that you're you're different schools of thought milton friedman and andreas others felt in its discretion consistently made mistakes and so he won't take it away from the fact and what he proposed a monetary aggregate money supply rule let the money supply grow it somewhere eight predetermined let's say three percent per year and then don't kick the discretion rule would have blown up to implement it because our financial system has evolved so rapidly that even defining what money is now impossible so and prepoll pretty much knowledge so now we expect it over to objective space policy one where the fed is explicitly trying to accomplish inflation at a certain level two percent gdp at a certain level equivalent to full employment justin chris rates accordingly to help get us closer to those objectives but still there are other factors that intervene push us away it has nothing to do with it and obviously we care about those other factors whether it's movements in the dollar importing inflation uh financial stability too much risk taking of the banking sector whatever it is and therefore some discretion i think is called for let's have some fun with counterfactual is here if if the take the rule woodward has been implemented back in two thousand eight two thousand nine how different would things look today pretty substantially because cake taylor ruslan apply it you would have ended up with interest rate a lot higher than they are today so there are a lot of people around who think that the economy has recovered as quickly as it could have or should have from that recession and therefore they feel that the fed should have done more uh i think has done an awful lot between quantitative easing and various other measures i think more could have been done on fiscal policy that.
"milton friedman" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer
"Seven zero two nine nine nine leafguard though was in mount vernon hello gardo promoter frank interesting that was reminded me of the pds shoes with milton friedman kuhn where he one of the segment she directly with what the professionals discussing and that the only way to resolve this the where it would be uh to do issues for everyone if the dynamism of the marketplace best he went to the history of how the medical insurance became a head of uh of the government and uh how employers got involved in providing you with your insurance and that the in milan run when the third parties or paying for something you are receiving the expensive it gets out of hand because the recipient of the service doesn't really consciously think about the course of it because of third parties involved in pain yet and that's the only way to resolve this is true every i think she the professors discuss which is correct what you were saying but the way to resolve is true the dynamism of the marketplace you know and he spoke about the she used in and many people use today calling tax expenditures with that shane is the concept is that the government is entitled automatically the premises governments entitled to my money and when they let me be very spending their revenue as though in the beginning their entitled to it well with milton friedman said is that you earn did it your money and if the government takes it from you there to have a really good reason for doing yeah and if they don't ricardo i understand that there have signalled quick break before we uh before we continue here thank you very much for the call eight seven seven nine seven zero two nine nine this is frank moreno welden wisdom.
"milton friedman" Discussed on WJR 760
"The the eight oddly hilo that i went univer the key to the up all take than k kept hidden but what would you need not much he the power politics cruelty electropause take but actually the ita who died grew by learning about a calling me light milton friedman and we accuse tv theory found that really by me in the uh the the the classical liberal the pre market way of seeing the economy cusack deleting be feet i hounded a group called the alliance which would allow is the lobby group for low taxes and government spending a bit creep bike american tax reform lordy the national taxpayer's union eichel by uh by kick from a united we pushing the provocative message and really bring liberty and low tech it took a uk you did that in two thousand four at age twenty six let's go back to nineteen 93 speaking about you enjoyed ideas and this european union is formed yet matthew what was the concept back then well when the eu formed after the war it could be a trade look to a bit like a bit like nafta if you like but then britain joined in the early nineteenth seventy people who want to julian won't be a trade blocking when tara through very high it was logical thing for britain to joy not how trade bloc poop un our economy badly in the 1970s prevail quickly turned into a political union the two which we now have he he pretend value made out to eu level but the key turning point you right who's really in the early 1990s quick i am i triki called the maastricht treaty a win that came in that with the key point really when eu went from being economic union which made you may come to britain carso to being of political union on the road to being a united states of europe something which you the people in the uk right he won't you wrote the change or go policy what was that policy please well when it came to about and they think 2013 david cameron right you came to the conclusion that we needed to renegotiate how membership of the.
"milton friedman" Discussed on The Jason Stapleton Program
"And what zuckerberg fails to identify here is that the only reason his company is successful now and he has the knowledge and understanding that he has about what to invest in and how to structure the company at what areas to take the company in for greatest growth and opportunity is because he went through that period of survival that period of struggle and folks may when we talk about a basic universal basic income i am against it on principle but i think that a a single payment is far better than the multitude of bureaucracies that we now have so if i am forced between too bad decisions i would choose a universal basic income over the system that we have in place now this is the argument the milton friedman may he said we live in a society where this has become not only acceptable but that has been demanded of society that there be some sort of social safety net and he said if we have to live in a social safety net society than universal basic income is better than a system of agencies and pay a bureaucracy that nobody understands how to navigate so but what you are not going to solve the problem that zuckerberg is trying to solve through universal basic income what a guy needs if he really wants to become successful is hostile he needs drive he needs a willingness to work and a willingness to take risks and that really takes me to another story that before you go there i own a among agree with you an eminent disagree with you so i'm and agree with you in in in the fact that people invest in themselves they put forth the work when they're going through the struggle but i'm going to disagree with you in terms of the that's what mark zuckerberg that's the problem that he's trying to fix see i think mark zuckerberg understands that like you said his company fail to make money for a long time it's only because they went through that struggled they figured out how to make money in in how to grow the company but mark zuckerberg runs in entertainment company me that's basically what facebook is right it's entertainment will windy you focus on entertainment when you're comfortable when you have enough to survive when you're not focusing on making taking care of your basic needs food shelter water that type.