Milton Friedman on Slavery and Colonization
This clip is from the 15-part lecture series, "Milton Friedman Speaks" www.ideachannel.com/product_in...
Transcript available via FreedomChannel: freedomchannel.blogspot.com/20...
Summary:
A student poses a question to Milton Friedman in which he asks for an appraisal of just how exactly the riches that now exist in the so called "capitalist democracies" were obtained and how those countries became so rich so quick. Specifically he asks Friedman to account for the effect that having free labor derived from slavery allowed them to enrich themselves, and how the possession of colonies allowed rich countries to bleed wealth out of their colonial domains.
Friedman responds by claiming it's simply untrue that the wealth that arose in Western countries was due to slavery. Slavery was a disgrace and a blot on the United States' record, but many rich Western nations did not have slavery. Britain and Japan did not have slaves when they developed and Hong Kong does not have slaves today.
He goes onto claim that the facts are against the notion that the wealth was created due to the West exploiting its colonies. The reason people are quick to think so is that they have an ingrained predisposition to see view the world as a zero-sum game where if one man gains the other man looses. In reality a free market allows everyone to gain through mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. When the West colonized Africa they brought with them technology that greatly improved the condition of the people that lived there and actually made them better off. The wheel for example had not even been invented in Africa in the 19th century. As a result of Africa's contacts with the West their condition improved greatly from what it previously was.
To the charge that colonizers bleed wealth from their colonies, Friedman notes that it has always cost the mother country more to maintain its colonies then what was ever received in direct or indirect economic benefit. In the famous case of India, conclusive studies have shown that it cost Britain far more to maintain India then if it had never had it. Furthermore, many Western nations never possessed colonies yet became wealthy despite that fact.
See also:
Free to Choose - All 15 episodes streaming online for free
www.ideachannel.tv
A history of Free to Choose
www.freetochoose.com
This was back when open debate was not only allowed, but encouraged on college campuses.
It also lacks the hate speech we have now that stifles the discussion.
@@Monteqzuma And the many things interpreted as hate speech that are not. You are probably one of these people who think deportation of illegals is inhumane when it is quite legitimate.
@@goldentaco4970 And you are quite obviously someone who assumes to much.
It's because Democrats know they'll lose lol
@@goldentaco4970 you probably one of those of thinks the white nationalists is somehow conservatives or capitalists.
Man that guy opposing Friedman really was in the 70s.
Leftists care more about superficial outward appearances than substance.
Yeah blah blah blah lefty cucks blah blah blah
Different outfit, same entitled SJW mindset
Superfly.
He sounds like communist fool who had been indoctrinated by Che Guevara and Fidel castro...fools will be fools....Is taht Obama or some other jerk?
As a Zimbabwean, I wish I could have a chat with the guy. We are struggling under socialistic policies. All my colleagues are thinking of 'voting with their feet' as I type this comment.
Can you, as a Zimbabwean, answer my question honestly and sincerely: was life better for you during Ian Smith and Rhodesia, or during Robert Mugabe? All the best to you and your nation, greetings from Croatia!
@@contra1138 Thanks so much for the warm wishes. Unfortunately I was born long after the Smith regime had ended. I've just had torrid experiences of the Mugabe days. However, most people in my parents' and grandparents' generation say thatthe Smith regime was better. They did quite enjoy life during his day. The social indices such as infant mortality, life expectancy, number of people on housing lists etc also point in that same direction.
@@denismunashesidunaSID Thank you for your kind reply, Sir! God bless you for your honesty. I hail from a country which too has in the past tasted the boot of communism. I long for the day when the forces of truth will rejoin the battle against the devils of Marxism again!
youre struggling under Ns
@@contra1138 So nice to see a fellow Croatian under a Friedman video. I thought there are no economical literate people in Croatia anymore. Wish you all the best from Germany, sve najbolje!
His colonialism comments about Russia are spot on. Never looked at it like that. Also, "voting with your feet" tells you everything you need to know.
The fact that China and Russia are horrors don't give the West and capitalism a go to heaven free card. There are more equitable systems possible. Something in between, social democracy perhaps, as in northern europe. What Bernie Saunders proposes. I ve had for the last 20 years. almost free full medical dental and 5 weeks paid holidays in Germany after having nothing in Calif. for 20 years.. and a good retirement. whatchoogot Buford? What's going to keep you from living in a box on the streets of san francisco when you have your first big medical crisis and you're out of work and insurance won't pay because it was "a preexisting condition"? you all are effing yourselves and your kids. Other middle way systems simply haven't even been tried because power does not give itself up easily, in either extreme case. capitalism or so-called communism .. And they are both extreme with extreme results and inequity resulting.. As China becomes more capitalist more of its people suffer now. The ones with jobs, worked to death and the ones without in the hinterlands, discarded now as they were during Mao's horrors which killed millions by starvatio0n. Millions are being killed now too, just a little more slowly . look at a documentary on the living conditions of the average Chinese wage slave. Horrible. The minority benefit . Why . Nature o the beast. duh. IF you're motivated, have some capital to start, and are willing to fu kk over everyone and everything, you will succeed. Voting with their feet? Yeah, like the millions leaving central Africa for Europe . Why? Because modernization and hundreds of years of European extraction economics have them paying 2, 3 , 4 dollars for a liter of clean water in Nairobi, where they make 30 dollars a day. If they're lucky enough to have work. Thanks masah. ! for all you done done fo us.
The USA is constantly dealing with people who are trying to vote with their feet, and the GOP in particular rail on about preventing it. US colonialism and extraction of resources in Latin America caused situations that make people need to flee their own countries. Milton Freedman had no problem with US led coups or installing regimes to prevent democratically elected socialists from holding office.
Voting with your feet in nothing more than the locus feeding and then slowly leaving. Not a form of "good economics". Milton is one lab tech grasshopper surmising the history of a few good events, not empirical evidence, but a rationalization to support his positions to guarantee his endowments.- Still, he is a smart dude.
@@Noitisnt-ns7mo Smart dudes like Friedman know who's paying them and what they want to hear. He preached to the good old boys club who owned everything except what the poor owned, but they wanted to own all of it, too.
@@Noitisnt-ns7moThen what is good economics in your view? And Friedman was a lone figure quite often as most academics were Keynes followers.
Christ, the audience is so well behaved--no air horns, chanting, slogans, or horseplay.
They were kinda rowdy but yea, they werent setting shit on fire like _some_ people do
Snaggle Toothed That was epic. The best laugh I’ve had in a while.
they didn't even try to run him over with a car.
The thing is they wouldn't get away with it back then. Universities used to have very little tolerance for that kind of stuff. I'm not completely sure people wouldn't have behaved badly back then if they were encouraged to do so by professors and staff.
Milton demands respect
Back when liberals and conservatives could actually have a civil discussion with each other on a college campus.
@I Know How You Feel Man get out of here with that bullshit.
@I Know How You Feel You are a dumbfuck. I am an economic libertarian. I can admit capitalism is not perfect. Greed will always be a flaw in human nature. That is the survival of the fittest gene. However, if you have enough checks and balances ... capitalism is the best option. As Friedman states, capitalism is necessary for freedom ... unlike socialism, where the government has too much power. There is no competition. That said, Trump does NOT support capitalism. Without truth and the order of law, capitalism can't exist. That's why he's even more dangerous than socialism.
actually, look at the background - the communists were in large numbers in that room, and, this was during the Carter recession.
@I Know How You Feel Here's some advice dumbfuck. When you can't compete on equal footing ... blame a race, culture, rationality. sex, etc. YOU ARE A LOSER looking for excuses. YOU ARE the lowest form of human evolution. You are looking for a free handout.
@I Know How You Feel I think you should spend a little less time on the Bell Curve and more on the learning curve.
I mean, Friedman really let that kid speak in depth. Then he responded in depth. That’s how a classroom should work.
Here’s the problem… Friedman doesn’t present any evidence to back up his assertions. Usually when you’re having a classroom debate you actually have evidence to back up your claims. He doesn’t. You don’t find that suspicious…?
@@theQuestion626If you understand extensively who and what Milton Friedman is as a learned man, if you asked for proof of his assertions like he stated he could go on forever. It would takes days just to allow him to provide all the facts of the gentleman’s question/POV on slavery and who or how which parties benefitted. It is a proven fact that majority of origins of slaves that ended up in many countrires were sold by the “KINGS” of superior African Tribes that fought against each other to countries like Spain, France, England etc., for gold, guns, textiles, food, etc. So yes slavery is a huge “BLOT” in any nation that let it go on as Friedman stated “AS LONG AS IT DID”, but before you place blame on one you must understand that there is equal blame for the other. Because the WEST could never have benefitted financially from use of those slaves if they were not offered in exchange for goods like ones mentioned by those tribe Kings & Elders in the first place. Two parties involved equally benefited, are of equal guilt because neither denied the initial slave transaction.
@@johnreilly5600 but you see without actual evidence, historically provided evidence? He’s just giving us his opinion. He’s very eloquent, but that’s it. And that’s my problem with Milton Friedman, he bases his entire economic beliefs not on historical precedents or fact or even anthropological analysis, just his ideological driven narratives. This is why economists shouldn’t really be taken seriously because they’re not scientists they may use some scientific models but even their models end up being wrong and history has proven that Milton Friedman was very wrong. For instance, not long after Milton Friedman‘s economic theories were applied to Chile that’s when you saw the economic tumultuousness and economic stagnation. America followed little by little not long after. By the end of the Republican 80s wages were successfully stagnated, unions were broken, good jobs are being outsourced, poverty was increasing, corporate profit sword, but this of course happened in the shadow of stock market volatility and two crashes and multiple recessions. Milton Friedman was wrong. About pretty much everything. And he’s dead, and that’s good. But unfortunately for the rest of the world his delusional ideology continues to exist and break the world down bit by bit. And I bet you if this bespectacled little smug midget was still alive he be doubling down on his ideological dogmatism.
@@theQuestion626 So you are asking for every utterance to be supported by extensive caveats and references so that instead of conversation it would sound like a court case with nitpicking lawyers disputing every syllable spoken. End result. Audience falls asleep learns nothing.
@@LaymansGnosis-kd8wy what I am basically asking is for him to actually direct us to studies and analyses that actually validate the ideological dogmatism he seems to rely upon as opposed to objective analysis. By the way? The audience could actually benefit from an evidence-based argument instead of being indoctrinated by his libertarian dogmatism. Let me break this down to you Friedman makes sweeping generalizations, is vague and ambiguous, presents utopian syntax but presents no evidence to even remotely support validity to his arguments= Audience is held in awe but they have been conned. Ergo? They don’t learn anything.
So glad these are getting online.
Disco, acid and intellectualism. Groovy.
Nick Farr I know right? How did they afford that lifestyle? Makes me wonder
well, disco and acid, 2 out of 3.
@@tekay44 wannabe intellectuals, much like today. Pseudo-intellectuals because they got a badge (degree)
egotistic pompous asshole on some acid, bohemian hippies cant do shit that is productive
You're an idiot!
When you want to ask Milton Friedman a question at 7:30, but have to be on the disco dance floor by 8:00.
Your comment is in the top 1% of the internet.
That's super funny
After working all day at the car-wash.
Not the disco. More likely his communist party of America meeting.
wth
The days when political discussions didn’t involve cussing, violence and debauchery, but civil conversations. When people from either side of the political isle could just come together and have discussions without throwing a fit like a toddler. Man, must’ve been great back then.
You have to realise public education in the States and elsewhere has gone to hell. When people have little or no education they have a small vocabulary. Not being able to make their point verbally they turn to being rowdy, to being violent. Denying others their right to free speach.
this more of a economic discussion to me.
Disagree with you. MF was odious in so many ways.
Not calling out and throwing out lying piece of shit Milton Friedman was a fault, not a good thing.
"In reality a free market allows everyone to gain through mutually beneficial voluntary transactions." Dr Friedman fails to realize that in regards to India the markets were not only NOT free and the transactions were NOT voluntary.
I think you missed what he said - he agrees with you - watch from 6:35, Friedman says that after Independence India had a highly centralized control of their markets - following economist Harold Laski's ideas instead of Adam Smith - and their standard of living went down. (precisely because the markets were not free).
It exploited a dictatorship (isn’t that still going on?) of a cast system. So India was never truly free then to start off with and still is far from ‘free’
@@degamispoudegamis What? How? India wasn't liberal or free at all. It was pretty much socialist up until the 90s.
Also, there were laws in place in America that restrict black Americans access to competitive economic capitalism....In 1638, The Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion act, which was also implemented in other states.
@@eti-om2gh what dictatorship? India has never been under a dictatorship.
his point on Hong Kong and Mainland China is truer now than ever before
deeyem1991 Especially lately
Hello
this aged well
especially now
But China has opened it¨s understanding of Market-value, wich Marx dinied totally. and that it can give them more resourses back than used as a producer...
Lenny Kravitz obviously feels passsionate about this topic
Francisco Bizzaro he just wants to get away, he wants to fly away ...
A lot of university students and lazy people incapable of independent thought just regurgitate nonsense that they hear their Socialist professors say, and their fellow protesters yell. It takes a brain and a backbone to go beyond your own cultural conditioning, and question the bullshit propaganda you are being fed by people who are really manipulating you for their own political agendas. Most people who are on the Left use feelings to make their arguments instead of facts. Just because you want reality to be a certain way doesn’t change it.
I Found the young man in shades to have more truth than the smooth talking word-manipulating distorter of truth in a suit and tie, the uniform of the dominant class. Students who don't have an agenda of promoting an evil empire and who are still idealistic sometimes are more informed, more seeking of truth, and truly are innocent and virtuous people@@BrockLanders
thats what humans do.
@@BrockLanders Thank you for the compliment.
So many commenters here are engaging in restorative nostalgia. As someone born in the 50's, I can assure you folks back then were fully as bigoted, reactionary and close-minded as they are today. Maybe more so. People have not gotten worse; they simply have more ways to communicate.
Unfortunately, most of those in the audience who were close minded ended up having children which became even more close minded
Word! Pre-programed by the Marxist infiltration of universities back then. Many of the questions were extensively written by these same professors.
@Michael Terrell II nice strawman
Exactly
Exactly. And they became Republicans and voted for Trump. It really is depressing.
“Look at how people vote with their feet.”
When all you have to choose from are shit systems, the least shitty, is still unlimatey shit.
Man, where were professors like this guy when I went to college. I would have loved this class.
Just go to the school of the Americas in central and South America. That is the school.
Ok but nothing he said is true. So why are you so eager to hear ideology over facts from a classroom?
89technical Got any evidence for that ? Or is it just another fact less claim?
Much of the wealth in Britain was from slavery! There may not have been slaves in Britain itself but it had them in their colonies. The inequalities of the present day can be traced back to the policies of Milton Friedman espoused by Reagan and Thatcher. Trickle down economics didn’t work. The money flowed up and stayed there!
@Millenial King i honestly think that just the term "trickle-down economics" is misleading, mostly because friedmann wasnt in favor of just giving businesses money and he was also for a dlat tax w/ a negative income tax/ UBI. There isnt anything "trickle down" about that, he is just taxing the wealthy and poor fairly and providing a better welfare structure for the poorer people
Hats off to groovy question asking guy. He’s thinking and being intellectually curious.
No he's not... he's been brainwashed. He didn't really ask a question, he led with a loaded statement to drive someone to an answer he expects.
@@chuckdeuces911 Exactly. He was just a slightly more polite, but not much, Antifa.
Wasnt a question it was a tedious naive statement that the teacher should listen to the scatterbrained student.
@@chuckdeuces911 Friedman said "Britain did not have slaves" as if just because there were no slaves in Norfolk (well, I suppose the workers' conditions were slavish) the vast swaths of capital owned by British investors in the West Indies didn't count... There is no feasible distinction between income from domestic assets and foreign assets. Also, I could hardly believe my ears that he said colonization was a NET ECONOMIC LOSS for the colonizers. I guess King Leopold was just setting aside his hard-earned pocket money to raise his Congolese brothers out of poverty, right? These are brazen examples of intellectual dishonesty to serve the interests of the powerful and wealthy. The student's question was enlightened.
That you think the rambling, and factless, comments were "enlightened" says more about you than him. SMDH@@joshbaino3087
Man, I miss the 70's!!! I was a college freshman in the mid ,70's Good good times! There was a respect that existed which isn't present today
"Excuse me, i' d like a little bit of free speech myself"
That part was awesome.
@@ExpertExterminators Why? He was already having it for several minutes. He acted as if "free speech" means "unlimited time to ask a question".
"I agree with you so let me finish" Even old Friedman laughed
Free speech only applies to public space. This was private property.
The people were paying to listen to Milton teach, not the student. There is no promise of free speech in the system every person in that room consented to during enrollment.
I am from Czech republic (former Czechoslovakia) and he is absolutely right about Russia's colonialism within and outside the Soviet Union!
Russia bullied its' soviet colonies for so long, and was so focused on its task, it failed to figure out why its former colonies (i.e. Belarus, Czech Republic,etc.) today have a better standing of living. I'd much rather live in Prague than Moscow. Big love to our fellow European brothers in the East. (drunk american youtube commenting here xD)
People in Czech republic were always democratic - from Palacký to Masaryk, we always wanted the democratic that established in USA in 1776. Unfortunately, we were sold to Hitler in 1938 and to Stalin in Teheran in 1943. We suffered a lot under both regimes. Since 1990, we are back where we belong - between democratic countries in western and central Europe. Fuck USSR, fuck Stalin, fuck Brežněv!
@@Usertrappedindatabase only those "colonies" that joined eu live better than russia. Also european "colonies" were the areas of big investment. If you think that imperialism is profitable you are wrong. Ussr if fact spend enourmous amounts of money on poland, estonia, ukraine and others, it was not pointless to some extent, but right now there is no fucking battle between capitalism and communism, why tf we start a war in ukraine
Interesting, I am from Slovakia and I do not know about any Russian's colonialism. For the most part Moscow left local politics untouched. Then 1989 came bringing CIA meddling with our politics bringing us "democracy" and "freedom". The government and their friends get super rich by stealing state property into hands of few. Since then we are US colony.
@@miri9600 I agree with you .
Guys, there is so much wisdom here, even the guy asking the question is informed, just a normal student asking a question and being curious, this is amazing
And how good was his clothing choice! He looked awesome.
No he wasn't informed, he was a brainwashed COMMIE, and ignorant ignoramus.
uniformed with a typical left view
He is not informed they still have the same commy argument in 2023
@@JosiahWarren yeah but it's a better commy argument then im 2023
I'd partially disagree here. I'm from india, and Britain did absolutely plunder the country, limited education, left infrastructure in shambles (except for what helped its trade back home). India basically skipped the entire industrial revolution. Anyhow this is a good series, and we've got it better since we liberalized in 1991. The crowd is groovy, would've loved an open econ 101 with milton.
Read Empire of the mind by Zaheer Masani
Bro get ur head outta your ass, almost everything he said was bull 💩. Aren’t you even a little offended at the fact In his head India didn’t exist before being colonized ? It also makes no sense to put in all this effort to colonize nations and not have an economic reason. You think they just did it out of virtue ? That’s pure Eurocentric white supremacist bullshit
@@gs043420 How does the following recommendation provides it's content? Can you give a brief insight on the subject of the book please.
@@MM-KunstUndWahrheit It's about the other side of British colonization.
@@gs043420 thanks for the recommendation
I feel like the guy asking the question is a stereotype of something, but I can't figure out what it is.
Blaxploitation! Baby! You dig?
@Shake Except he's not white and living on a trust fund. Is he?
Sammy Davis Jr. clone
@@thomasfbaumer Not even close
A 70's guy asking a question.
This guy wouldn't be allowed to speak on college campuses today. Fucking sad.
No it´s not sad. You know why? because dumb people doesn´t deserve to be enlightened by the way of reason, peace and harmony. They deserve the wake up call by a big boot up their asses. Fuck the leftist college punks
That's a really good point that I hadn't thought of. I agree, even if your beliefs about economic realities are the polar opposite of his, I think it's good to challenge yourself to see if you can defend what you think.
You didn't go to college did you?
of course he would. assuming he could get a campus that would take him however. he would probably be booked out with corporate events anyways.
In Humanities departments, no lol. But his brand of mainstream economics is still de jure in economics departments here the world over.
I wish modern campuses were like this. A speaker gives a speech, the audience listens and either develops questions or come in already with prepared questions, they don’t shout down the speaker, the speaker, in-turn provides question and answer time. I think it’s called civility.
What's your experience with day to day activities on a college campus?
How would this audience have responded to a lecture from George Lincoln Rockwell? Just the same? Should audiences show the same amount of civility to Milton Friedman, as they do to George Lincoln Rockwell? Replace Rockwell with Milo Yiannopoulos; does that change the answer?
@@SandfordSmythe I live in a suburb of a city that has some of the oldest universities in the nation and has not just a high capita oh colleges for the area compared to other cities but also an Ivy League university. I interact and sometimes work with college students regularly. I’m fully aware of what is happening on modern campuses when I help college students with term papers.
@@rileymclaughlin4831 you sound like a brown shirt. You mention silencing a nazi as a way to justify silencing any speech don’t like. I don’t know how this audience would have responded to anyone else. I only know that while they disagreed with Friedman they didn’t shout him down. He spoke and they listened and then they questioned. I believe in the first amendment and if someone wants to spout something so psychotic that they are racist or extremist, I want them to be able to say it so I know from their mouth where they stand. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Sending unofficial brown shirts in to shutdown any speech is unacceptable and I can’t believe this is a comment thread I’m involved in so far removed from my original comment.
I remember this series of lectures when I was an undergrad in history and economics. Some of us didn't agree with Professor Friedman, but we were all respectful to this fine and very knowledgeable scholar. I subsequently read his book, Free to Choose, and changed my mind about a lot of economic and economic history topics.
It's amazing how different the picture gets when you examine the facts instead of just examining the emotional impact of wrongdoings.
Facts? Milton used selective facts and even gaslighted, as if he never read about US’ policies governing Hawaii and Puerto Rico (or if u really want to go at it Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua…basically the entire Western Hemisphere)
@@newagain9964 I agree with you 💯 Selective facts or was Milton just lying
Too bad he cited barely any facts. He just asserted the person asking the question was wrong.
@@newagain9964 If facts are what you’re looking for, I highly recommend the following books by Thomas Sowell: Conquests and Cultures: An International History; Wealth, Poverty and Politics; Black Rednecks and White Liberals; The Vision of the Anointed; Discrimination and Disparities; Race and Culture: A World View…. He has numerous fact-filled books.
why did he say "britain did not have slaves"? they did, including in britain itself. there are too many falsehoods from him to list
"Which society votes with their feet..." HUGE!!!!
Guess that's why people are leaving California.
it blew my mind so relevant right now
SJWs: “AMERICA IS THE MOST HATEFUL RACIST BIGOTED AND HORRIBLE SOCIETY IN THE WORLD” Immigrants voting with their feet: uhhhhhhh idk about tht chief
@@thewitchfindergeneral4015 voting with their feet, more like no other choice but to chase and beg for the crumbs of what was stolen from them
Aftermath Recovery I’m curious, from what part of the world did the US steal all its wealth from??
2019 some people in the Hong Kong protests are carrying the old colonial flag with the Union Jack, so looks like ol Milton F had a point
Yup bunch of brainwashed slaves
he deliberately avoid to talk about certain historical fact, for example what is the trade balance btw qing dynasty and british gov? What is the content of Nanjing treaty in 1848, why britain has opium war. If using this logic, hitler might bring advanced technology and integrated industrial system to eastern europe. But he compeletly avoid the fact that the colonization responsible for millions of ppl death,ppl die in the slave trade, the war and conflicts in these countries. One fun fact,singapore is a country, which enjoy great economic development after she win the war with,british colonizer, one more fact macau under portugal control is a terrible gov,but after return to china, the eco is fast growing. Again, you do not convince ppl about how hitler kill jewish ppl in other countries could help the country get rid of influence of huge capitals, coz it is immoral in the first place, whatever the way you look at it, wheather it is Kant abosulute morality or Bentham utilitarianism
there are also people waving maoist and socialist flags. The HK protest is a protest against Chinese fascism, regardless of economics. China is capitalist.
@@aamaurismith7176 Wrong. Its the systematic output of a white british colony that was subjected to an education system that had the chinese that lived there believe they were superior than other chinese, enough so that they no longer thought themselves as chinese. Then after years of xenophobia and systematic racism (which is absolutely crazy because its chinese hating on chinese) it hit a tipping point when western forces underminded the fabric of society in HK after the Handover. Years of brainwashing had HKers believe that they were nothing chinese and that chinese "mainlanders" were evil /disgusting / roaches , etc... everything like what hitler said about jews, because they were programmed to believe so. Which is just a repeat of history of what western white civilizations have done to people of color throughout history. If you read about South America, Middle East, Asia and every where else, its the same thing. White countries come as friends or as slave masters, they see the local political factions and use the minority to subjegate the majority to a brutal rule puppet handpicked and lead by the west. No way am I supporting communism or socialist, just telling it how it works. It doesnt matter if its about politics (like communism), or religion (like sunni and shia like they spilt the middle east) or Hindu and Muslim, like they split India and Pakistan by the British, or "communism" like they split North and South Korea, or Vietnam, or Colombia, Bolivia, etc.. It's a revamp of neo colonialism done by the white west. They control the media, movies, culture and everything else you read and see on TV and the internet so its easy to fool people to think its about "against communism" or "facists" or "terrorists" or "war on drugs". Its the same thing, it doesnt matter the cause, its only there to fool the mass public into supporting a war and destruction of a country. What I think is funny is that HKers believe that flying a union jack is some how about freedom. They literally killed thousands of chinese and HKers under brutal rule. Only thing is that the young HKers today have never seen what happened to their grandparents so they have nothing to relate to except that china is evil as told when growing up by their education system and people around them. Union jack represents colonialism and what the white western countries did to people of color through its history, subjugating them through brutal slavery, forced labor and theft of resources and land for white peoples benefit and they literally are so brainwashed they fly that flag saying Please help recolonize us. HKers never had freedom under british rule, could never vote and was second class citizens, just like in all their other colonies around the world. Most young HKers are so uneducated in these matters is not even funny. They literally got chinese people to get racist against other chinese LOL what a amazing trick. The funny thing is they keep calling for democracy, but the Brits are a MONARCHY. Funny huh?
@@JH-dl6vu I hope you arent actually expecting me to read that
Does anyone has the source for the studies he mentions at 6:00? Cant find anything on google. Thank you.
I love listening to a brilliant person explaining things
Friedman isn't nearly as brilliant as his reputation.
@@presence5426 that's some contest, Haha!😂
Is that Colin Kaepernick's biological father?
1) his father was/is black 2) your comment is retarded
Actually it is Colin Kaepernick. This proves time travel is real.
Joseph Kobatake that all you can come with??? C'mon Joe....you can do better
Aslan, Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Excellent!
Racists really havent advanced much in these past 200 years..
These college students are almost as naive as today's.
Some things never change, huh? The dude with the question just so happened to be real hip too.
+Kevin Norris Today those dimwitted college students would be voting for Bernie Sanders.
+Kevin Norris By that time Soviet PSYOPS was well under way. Today it is even worse though.
College makes you dumber than shit.
Phish Munger Depends on the college, the subject you study and how good you are at compartmentalising and integrating information.
This guy is probably turning in his grave these days
Friedman is? Good. Dude was a distant idealist. My favorite object lesson: Friedman's & the Chicago Boys' floating currency policy doomed Pinochet's Chile to worse inflation than Allende's lack of fiscal policy did, until Sergio de Castro (himself, a student of Friedman) saw through Friedman's dogmatic bullshit and pinned Chile's currency to the USD. If I've kept your attention thus far, figure I'd be remiss if I didn't say: Sure, Britain's administration illegalized the slave trade in 1807 (or 1833, depending on who you ask) (see 03:54). But the triangle trade served to: 1. Provide English traders with about 15 million pounds profit through its run (about 1.4 trillion pounds in 2019, adjusting for purchasing power), and 2. Provide England with 3/4 of its raw material imports through its run. If that doesn't seem like a substantial factor in the genesis of the Industrial Revolution in the UK to Friedman, then not only was Friedman an idealist, he was also either ignorant, myopic, or an out-and-out charlatan.
@@kingdomcummies8128 Is this a copy and paste? Pretty sure I've seen this one before.
@@kingdomcummies8128 Love this response. He definitely was deliberately ignorant on british colonialism.
@@N0Xa880iUL Do you agree with Friedman though on other things?
@@kingdomcummies8128 1, your name is a gift from god. 2 your video titles are mad 3 In regards to floating currency policy. The only alternative I would see that would make sense would be a commodity backed currency. Currencies and the profit theory Friedman proposed were some of the few things he said that I strongly disagreed with. 4 Although yes, slavery 100 percent did help the industrial revolution through cheap imported goods, the idea that the industrial revolution wouldn't of or couldn't have happened without it is just bullshit. It definitely would've taken longer but it still would've happened.
Actually Mr. Friedman got it all wrong about India (06:05). Before Britain took over it in 17th century indian economy made up about 40% of the world economy and by the time they left it after 200 years India controlled just 4%% of the world economy. Britain made this possible in three simple ways. 1. Brutal taxation which squeezed the money out of the native peasants and left them with minimum capital to reinvest & grow their wealth. 2. Controlling the import-export trade by taking in raw materials from India and bringing back cheap finished goods from Britain to indian markets. Thus the local industry was killed off slowly through "captive market policy". 3. Delaying the industrial revolution in India so that indian goods couldn't compete in global markets. And absolutely nothing was spent on the local populace who were left to fend themselves. Large % of the wealth produced in India was hoarded in european banks and the flow of capital to India was tightly controlled. And one last thing. King Leopold of Belgium killed approximately 40% of Congo population and didn't just bring in the "Wheel" as Mr. Friedman suggested. Its quite disappointing that Mr. Friedman overlooked so much of this evidence in his rebuttals.
Spot on
It was a lost bet to try and convince the man who asked the question that the west did not immensely profit from colonization. It's not an unpopular take at least in 21st century america and it certainly isn't in Africa right now.
I lost it where he said India practically started its history after becoming colonized, I can’t believe someone would say something like that with a straight face and not get his shit kicked in
Also he obviously lied to them because information wasn’t as readily available back then. He’s not a moral or honest man, there’s barely anything he says that’s correct if you’re not a brain rotted neolib idiot
@@ginpotion2412 why did they do it then? And still continue to do it to this day by economic means instead of boots on the ground ? Just out of the pure goodness in the white mans heart ? To save these Inferior societies from their savagery?
Talk about history proving someone right; China's embrace of capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of its citizens out of poverty since 1978. The floppy hat man would have argued that such a feat would not have been possible without slavery, colonialism, or communism. This is almost 40 yrs ago, maybe the floppy hat man lived to see China and India improve their standards of living through capitalism, as has Brazil, Columbia and other south american countries - except Venezuela because it went socialist.
+usmelly Brazil has a very closed economy, day by day we are regressing to the late 80's when we entered a recession worse than Venezuela from today. We just have very many resources, and that prevents us from going bankrupt from one day to another.
+usmelly Except, it didn't embrace capitalism - China still has massive state control over the economy. The vast majority of societies today have mixed-market economies; that is, they combine elements of capitalism and socialism. The extent to which societies are capitalistic or socialistic differs, of course. In Scandinavia, they get the balance right: they combine the best parts of capitalism (it's easy to start a business there and trade is relatively free) with the best parts of socialism (a large welfare state, high taxation, free, universal healthcare, strong trade unions, and so on), leading to high GDP per capita rates and the lowest rates of poverty and inequality in the world. In Latin America, we've seen a move towards the socialist end of the spectrum, and the results have been excellent: in Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay and Bolivia, we've seen millions being lifted out of poverty, and this was also the case in Venezuela before Chavez died.
+geniusofmozart 1) If you were right, then China wouls not have had to liberalize its economy in the first place and allow private ownership - wish is most unsocialist. 2) Venezuela was a disaster before Chavez died, and the fact its gone even further down the toilet shows how a personality cult masked a country killing itself. Oil is trading at half of what it needs to prop up that joke of a country; which is why its collapsing. 3) Brazil is imploding as it cant afford its social spending in the wake of commodities collapsing. 4) Scandinavian countries are small, homogenous, societies many of which have smaller populations than individual cities we have - with none of the immigration and racial issues we face in our country. Sweden grows at 1% a year and has 25% less per capita GDP, Norway is swimming in oil revenue that props up its economy. Neither country is a model for ours, 30x larger growing much faster.
usmelly I never said that state socialism was the best route to take, but nor is pure capitalism.
+geniusofmozart That's not socialism. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production, which does not exist in any country in the world.
0:40 "if we look at India as compared to China, which has twice as many people" Damn, India has grown a lot in 50 years
Communism killed a third of the chinese between 1958-1963, Mao repeated the bolsjevik mistake of deriving thefree farmers their land, and farmers onlly roduce food for others if the get rewarded for it... So no profit - no food!
@@ulflundman8356 and the sparrow thing.
@@vincegalila7211 sparrow? Ulf=Wolf
@@ulflundman8356 I mean that time China declared war on birds to prevent them from eating their grain and accidentally caused a insect infestation. Which caused a famine.
Vince Galila chairman Mao actually contacted Stalin and asked for several hundred million sparrows.
This Friedman explanation about slavery and colonialism is absolutely candid and badly needed to be heard in 2020. Slavery and colonialism were not only evil but completely wasteful to all of humanity in the long run until freedom was gained. Indeed, a need for perspective in world history is imperative to understand that reality of human misery and progress. Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent, well documented book about the reality of slavery in world history and the actual progress Americans have made to truly be diverse and free, despite obvious challenges, in comparison to the majority of the world.
Title of book?
Colonialism and imperialism isn't always a bad thing. Not in all cases. Think about it would India be the world's largest democracy if it wasn't for colonialism from the British? Would we even be here in America if it wasn't for colonialism? Don't make such a blanket statement saying that it's all evil. Because it's not. It's not all black and white.
he says "britain did not have slaves" which is false
@@robertisham5279 It is Evil. Colonialism requires massive death and enslavement of native populations. That's the definition of Colonialism. Tell me how that is good for anyone but the white slavemaster?
@@shway1Slavery was never legal in britain. Its like saying the usa has sweat shops just because apple and nike own sweat shops. Every country had slavery and colonies so it doesnt matter
What Friedman said about the African wheels is a strange thing. The Egyptian pyramids are older than the wheels and yet nobody dares to undervalue the importance of the ancient Egyptian cultures in the growth of the Mediterranean civilization. Wheels are not feasible in areas where people are densely populated in some arable land and where natural obstacles exist. Thus the absense of wheels in Africa before their relationship with the West does not clarify the ‘benifits’ of Western imperialism for the African continent at all. It is a bias based on some modern regions where wheels / transport of goods are more important.
But it wasn't Africa that adapted Egyptian technology, it was western civilization that adapted Egyptian technology. Natural obstacles existed in mainland Europe too, but the greater civilization created roads to transport on. Even in more northern countries of Europe, the land was not arable but it became a part of western civilizations progression anyways. The absence of the wheel in Africa, compared to Europe having the wheel, created a more productive and economically rich society for those living within it. The wheel became important because of the transportation of things to other villages/towns/states, which led to more economic growth and progressive evolution of society. I can agree that a lot more goes into those variables, but when you compare societies on the basis of economic growth then you must look at the forward progression of which society/culture had done that specific part better.
@@ArchangelCreed in what way is a society "better" than another? Would you say a person is better than another? And by what standard have you made that judgement?
Wow..and he writes the text book.
He didn't realize Egypt is in Africa.
Excellent point
India: Why does he date the development of the colonial relationship between England and India from the late nineteenth century? The East India Company was established in 1600 - there was huge development before 1900 - indeed, by the middle of the nineteenth century there had been a number of wars and attempted revolutions (directly as a result of economic development) that led to the subjugation of the whole continent by the 1850s, and the formal institution of empire. He's ignored two and a half centuries of quite brutal colonialism, during which time there were huge flows of capital, produced in India, expropriated and sent to England. Is he talking about India, or a different country???? I don't understand.
HE is talking about the US===deceptions and lies and misinformation and imposing a lazy mind full of wrong concepts
Let me explain. First of all, take a look at appearance. He is wearing a suit, the uniform of the dominant class. Next, he is white. THis is the face of the establishment. It is simple to understand. The establishment has destroyed humanity intentionally and deliberately. They are deceptive manipulative evil mfkrs. Do not expect truth. If you do, you will always be disappointed. That is capitalist establishment 101. Understand?
this isn't and oppressed vs oppressor narrative. If you want good things to happen to you then make them happen. There are only 4 things that you need to do to become financially stable. 1: graduate highschool 2: get a job 3: don't commit any crimes 4: don't have children until you're married.
@Y T As cold as it may sound, colonialism is what was able to make india a more developed country.
The history of the Indian economy under British rule is far more complex than what many would have us believe www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/L0EQO6nzQo78NvpNoAO9xM/The-economic-legacy-of-the-British-Raj.html Sumit Mishra First Published: Sat, Aug 15 2015. 11 30 PM IST In a now famous speech at Oxford University , former Union minister Shashi Tharoor made a scathing attack on the former British empire. Tharoor eloquently argued that the British Raj had caused untold suffering to India and the Indian economy, and asked the British for reparations. While Tharoor deservedly received praise for his wit and eloquence, the narrative of exploitation that he spun is at best incomplete, and misleading at worst. Recent research by economic historians suggests that the British Raj was not an unmitigated disaster for India, as it was thought to be by earlier historians and economists. While colonial rule in India had harmful aspects, such as the low provision of public goods, it also helped galvanize Indian industry, making the country a vital part of global supply chains. For quite a long time, the dominant view about the British Raj in India was quite similar to what Tharoor had put forth: British rule impoverished the Indian economy by draining resources through taxation, and through a process of “de-industrialization” that robbed millions of artisans of their livelihoods. The earliest and most influential proponents of this view were two prolific writers, Dadabhai Naoroji and Romesh Dutt. Although these two gentlemen did not advocate an end to British rule, their writings turned into powerful weapons in the hands of Indian nationalists. The birth of “economic nationalism”-or the idea that India needed to be free because foreigners had ruined its economy-gave a boost to India’s freedom struggle, but it proved detrimental to a dispassionate assessment of economic history, and led India to close its doors to the world in the first few decades following Independence, argued renowned economic historian Tirthankar Roy in a recently published essay in the Economic and Political Weekly. The contributions of Marxist scholars such as Paul Baran and Samir Amin bolstered this view and led many influential leaders of the developing world to view openness with suspicion. The rich world became so by exploiting poor countries such as India, the Marxist scholars argued, and the narrative of drain and de-industrialization in India acquired even greater legitimacy. Roy argues that de-industrialization was a myth, simply because factory production and employment had taken firm roots in British India by the early 20th century and grew at a rapid pace in the first half of the 20th century. “Between 1850 and 1940, employment in Indian factories increased from near zero to two million,” writes Roy. “Real GDP at factor cost originating in factories rose at the rate of 4-5% per year between 1900 and 1947. These rates were comparable with those of the two other emerging economies of the time, Japan and Russia, and without a close parallel in the tropical world of the 19th century. Cotton textiles were the leading industry of the 19th century. Outside Europe and the US, 30% of the cotton spindles in the world were located in India in 1910. Within the tropical zone, 55% of the spindles were in India.” The creation of the three great port cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras spurred India’s industrial boom, as it helped Indian merchants and producers to integrate with the global economy, writes Roy. This would not have been possible without the supply of skills and technology that the European settlers provided, Roy contends. Engineers, managers and partners from abroad who joined Indian firms to work under Indian bosses were integral to the success of Indian industry.
Never trust a man in sunglasses indoors
Aaron Young Larry David,”there are two kinds of people who wear sunglasses inside. The blind and assholes.”
@@bcshu2 classic larry
@@bcshu2 Or hipsters
I love listening to this guy talk.
You learn so much when you allow the speaker to be heard.
From my observation, it seems like slavery in the US has been a net drain on our country. Slavery is probably the single biggest mistake (morally, philosophically, politically, and economically) has ever made.
TheHomoludens slaveholders are just balling out right now in alabama and mississippi. high rollin huh? you're an idiot if you actually believe your own bullshit
I don't know if it "made" the mistake. Most countries has slavery back then. USA was one of the first to abolish it.
I think abortion today is a much bigger crime than slavery every was. Killing ~63M unborn babies (almost 20% of the current U.S. population) since Row vs Wade and counting.
@@makisxatzimixas2372 Actually, the largest mistake was made right after slavery ended. At that point in time, America got lazy and opted for the "easiest" solution, which was to simply "free the slaves" and let them run amok. It would've been much wiser to take a long-term view of the certain outcomes of that option. The best long-term solution for everyone would've been for America to tackle the expense of shipping all the slaves back to Africa.
@@earlmonroe9251 It tried that and it failed miserably. There is video from Thomas Sowel that covers this.
I’m Indian and have to say Friedman is right. My generation got lucky that we got rid of the socialist mindset in 1991.
But I still am not sure as to his assertion that India was relatively better under British is true. Britishers introduced lopsided developement and discouraged the growth of local industries.
Britains enslaved indians
@@mukulmishra4722 True, but its relatively better compared to what was happening under the Mughals/ local Rajas.
@@csqr Not true. India's GDP was 25% of the world GDP in the 1700s, per a noted British economist who has studied GDPs across the world (Angus Maddison). So, I would say, India suffered more under the British (economically for sure and culturally as well.
@@Sidtube10 india suffered twice , first under British rule. In fact Indian economy was raped and then from 1947 under socialist congress government .
Thomas Sowell was a student of Milton Friedman... At the University of Illinois...
Mike LoVetere l believe it was the University of Chicago.
The vote with the feet is a good point
but irrelevant to the questions posed
I wonder if the fella speaking to Milton Friedman in the beginning has any idea of how many people were killed because of _The Great Leap Forward_.
***** Typical leftist thought-process.
***** But that's how a leftist would argue in that regard, especially those on the far left. Perhaps you're not as left as you think you are?
***** We're speaking from a American political dichotomy view. People on the right, such as myself and other paleoconservatives, don't want a police state. It'd be easier if we talk about left and right in terms of less vs more government intervention in state and foreign affairs; the old royal french way.
***** I suppose later on that was the case. The way I've understood it, was that it was less control vs more control vis-a-vis left vs. right. by the way, it wouldn't be ironic to show that because of leftism, capitalism and a shunning of the older system of France was cast off. The traditional left, that is to say classical liberalism, emphasized greater personal freedom both politically and economically. As an American (actually South African, but raised in the midwest), i was brainwashed with the American figure of left vs. right (two sides of the same coin really).
***** I'm a paleoconservative. I'm against mccarthyism, but you'd be surprised by how many lefties would be in favor of a police state if it meant that their feelings wouldn't get hurt. I disagree with your statement that post-modern american left-right political dichotomy is not the same coin. I'll give an edit explaining tomorrow, I'm tired as fuh. To give you a hint, many hippies and the children of hippies threw out their hippy clothing and either became ''libertarians'' or neoconservative (they're called cuckservatives now) reaganites; it has everything to do with narcissism and greed while giving no shit about the family, community and nation (but especially paying lip service by the cuckservatives).
Friedmens analysis is superficial. The quickest counter argument I can make is a question.... So then why did Britain have colonies?
Got him!
Britain wants to rule the world that's why
CmdrTobs similar to the caliphates,the mughals and ottoman turks,french,portugese,roman empire?
Why do empires do things that turn out to not be viable or beneficial? I think even you can answer this one.
Well why does any nation want more land?
I've love Mr Milton's views but I don't think he held up well here
A marxist audience shouting and disturbing does not mean Milton didnt hold up well. Everything he said was clear
@@thiagofelipe3229 No , that's not what he's saying here ,I love Friedman but he was way off here , in case of India about whose history I think he's oblivious of , he doesn't know that there weren't fare transactions in the colonization of India it was coercion and a one way profit road which built Britain not India, the market wasn't actually free vis a vis India and to say that Indians were well off under British than independence is ignorant and short sighted. Secondly I personally think he supported colonization without knowing the actual nitty-gritty of it and how it worked.
You almost expect "all hell to break loose", but alas, twas a more civilized time...
There is so much to learn from this guy.
no there isnt. hes an idiot.
+Tristan Hurley you're an idiot
You believe the guy who says that colonial powers don't get any wealth from exploiting their colonies and have the nerve to call someone else an "idiot?"
better thenu LOL "maintenance and supply" to the colonies. Do you understand what a colony is?
Jesus Christ
A good question for Dr. Friedman would be "Why were the world's biggest capitalists financing the world's biggest communists?"
The promise of protection from authoritarian regimes would be the only way free people would easily give up their rights. For instance, the TSA was formed after 9-11 to protect us from terrorists. Many people didn't want to give up their rights but the majority of people were for such measures. Also, the TSA is grossly incompetent and has proven itself to be incapable of doing its job. People wanted FDR's plans initiated to help alleviate suffering in the Great Depression. FDR's plans added an estimated 10 years to the depression, permanently hampered the economy, and made Americans used to large scale social programs and the helping hand of Uncle Sam. Everything is about control. The only people who don't want everyone to be free to make their own choices are the ones who want to make those choices for their fellow men and women.
Thank you
@@brendenshouse5807 Could you please expand on your statement about the TSA being "grossly incompetent? If you could list all of the terrorist attacks that have happened since 9-11 in the U.S. by airplane, maybe that would drive home your point. If you think getting frisked before getting on an airplane is taking away your freedom to be flown into buildings by religious nut-jobs, then I guess I would have to agree with you. But if you think getting frisked to fly safely is a threat to your freedom, then you are an idiot. It may be a slight inconvienience, but that is all. Please try to remember that making statements online does not make the statements true.
Because those people like in China put their people thru the worst conditions - if there were no chinas or Indias we would resort more capital toward technological advancement that would eradicate the need for jobs. Watch what has happened in the last 45 years since this video.
Friedman is great at ignoring inconvenient facts and reorganizing a question so as to avoid providing an answer.
He was BRILLIANT. I love the fact that we used to be able to have a debate where everyone behaves. Can’t be done any more.
Now people would just yell at him for being opposed to ending public and private segregation. Look it up, he was opposed to Brown v. Board of Education.
If they stump you with facts or something you don’t understand, you must curse and insult your opponent to win…
Friedman wasn't nearly as brilliant as his rep suggested.
Slavery predates the rise of free capital markets, it has been detrimental to free capital markets and has survived most successfully in the modern era via Marxist regimes, through gulags, laogais and forced labor camps. To blame slavery on 'capitalism' while institutionalizing slavery in Marxist regimes requires an extraordinary level of chutzpah.
Slavery was very important to the Ottoman Empire, which was the greatest power in Europe from about 1400 to about 1700. It is estimated that more African slaves were brought into the Turkish realm than across the Atlantic. But they were not allowed to reproduce. Castration was generally the practice for male slaves and many did not survive the procedure.Plus a trek across the Sahara in chains was as killing as the transatlantic crossing for women and children.The labor in the Empire just as burdensome.
Well said, sir!!
@@degamispoudegamis Left fascists will say anything to justify their murderous exploitation of those who work and those who earn. Claiming capitalism is "legitimizing slavery" when Marxist states literally rent workers out as slaves is the next level of hypocrisy. foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11/cotton-china-uighur-labor-xinjiang-new-slavery/
@@DrCruel Fascist are not leftist Hitler was Anticommunist Francisco Franco was Anticommunist
@@ronalddino6370 And Lenin destroyed the Social Revolutionaries and Anarchists. It's a tradition among Left fascists to destroy their socialist rivals once they gain the power to do so. Mind, Franco is a different matter, as he was pro-monarchist. That makes Iberian fascists like Franco and Salazar classic Rightists, because pro-aristocracy is what made a person a Rightist - before Karl Marx came up with his ridiculous socio-economic theories. Ironically, that makes many socialist regimes "rightist" too, as they are also essentially hereditary autocracies.
Not entirely correct on the point of colonization. Britain benefited through it's actions in Ireland in the 18th/19th centuries very much to the detriment and ultimate death of a large portion of the Irish population from a famine it imposed.
Did he really say that countries infested with colonial cancer were better off then than being free? Dude that's some serious mental issue! Following his logic you better live in prison cause you get food three times a day, have place to sleep... what more do you want?
If Milton Friedman had been born into chattel slavery, it would have spared the rest of us this ghoulish monetarism which mainstreamed mass layoffs and suffering.
Milton Freidman makes some great points here. I have two points, however. first, while "advancement" may have taken place during colonialism, the colonies themselves usually didn't benefit from them. In the case of Africa, for instance, it is true that the French, British, and Germans built railroads, but these railroads lead from the interior to the coast. they did not connect the interior. I think it is possible that these powers could have created a system of transportation which the people of Africa could have used to create a trade based economy, but they did not chose to do so. instead, those railroads were positioned to make it easier for the colonial powers to move goods from the interior to the coast, where they could be put on board ships and sold elsewhere for the profit of the colonial powers themselves, not of the African people themselves. This pattern can be seen in all of these supposed improvements. Could France have helped its African colonies to grow their own economies and given the people better quality of life by fighting the diseases which threatened them? Possibly. However, the diseases which they constantly patted themselves on the back for battling were primarily those which effected white colonists in port cities. They made no effort to actually help, despite the fact that a healthy local population could well have created a more prosperous colony in the long run. Could western education have helped local entrepreneurs to rise and create business in the African interior, and increased their contact with other parts of the world? Possibly. However, the subjects which were taught, religion and basic French, had nothing to do with helping Africa to "modernize" or "advance." Rather, they were intended to create local overseers who could help administrate French business ventures in the interior, where it was difficult and dangerous for the French to live themselves, due to disease and extreme heat. (Jesus, i really wrote a novel there, i really didn't intend to, but i got carried away a bit.)
You make a pretty good point. Also this is a good a time as any, to point out that you can agree with someone’s ideas and disagree with some. Something that seems not to exist in 2022. I’d be interested to know what model he used to quantify all the extraction that happened and still happens in Africa by colonialists. When he says they mostly were a cost than benefit. That in fact is absolutely not true. If he were alive today I’d have loved for him to answer that. There was such a huge opportunity cost lost to Africa as a result of human capital that left the continent for the west. And even if you were to argue that indeed it was a free market. And they bought this slaves. Was that a market price? Because it’s just not commensurate with the value they had in virtually all fields in the west. Would the west have been able to advance at the rate they did, in all spheres, without slavery? Absolutely NOT.
@@kidikeiv I don't know what people are talking about with not being able to have a debate. That's exactly what is happening all over KZhead and many other platforms. Discussions have never been more widespread. Perhaps we're seeing a huge number of people who are bad at arguing (my former self included) who are now improving with every year at arguing coherently. Moving on, I very much agree with you about Mr. Friedman's point about the colony being a cost greater than the benefit to the colonizer. It is logically false for a venture to be continued beyond its economic merit - indeed, corporations and governments would "vote with their feet" and drop the funding for such ventures. It is bizarre for an economist to claim that consumers will vote with their feet to leave a shitty situation in communist China, but would not presume the same to apply to capitalist ventures. A great example of how colonial merchants can wreak havoc on a foreign kingdom, just read or listen to William Dalrymple's great The Company Quartet. Several podcast episodes cover the summary of what happened, but it certainly wasn't "oh these poor backwards chaps, let's help them get on with life and start a prosperous trading relationship." No, it was asset stripping at gunpoint for much of the early days of the company, which had taken advantage of a splintered and bankrupt Mughal Empire and a technological and tactical revolution in war-making in Europe. It made that company wildly rich, which was supported by shareholders who were often Members of Parliament in Britain. Eventually, the company becomes part of the state and India becomes a colony of Britain. It's an excellent review of what happened there, and parallels can be seen today. Mr. Friedman does make a good point earlier on though. He states that wherever freedom exists, capitalism is present. To me, what he is saying is that freedom does not imply the pleasant treatment of others, nor freedom from all abuses. Rather freedom implies only that a government will not entirely control what you do, and will only interfere with your life in proportion to the individual's expectation of services such as protection and refereeing the violence. This seems inescapably true, but it's love to know your thoughts
@@EarlofSedgewick Have you ever stepped onto the campus of a large liberal arts college these days? Have you ever tried to book a conservative speaker at such an institution?
@@capmidnite I have not, but friends have. They still get booked. Peterson recently spoke at Cambridge as the Guest of Honour. There was an interruption, but nothing blocking his speech by any stretch
Can you name one formerly colonized country which, in its post-colonial period, wished to return to a pre-colonial, pre-industrialized state? Any country whose people desired to do so?
Look at the difference between college campuses in 1978 and today. Today the students would not allow this man, Milton Friedman to speak at all. That's very sad, very embarrassing.
The real difference is that back then the national guard was willing to gun down student protesters. Such a better situation /s
"it's just not true" is not an argument based in historical fact. How could any landowner growing cash crops not become extremely wealthy by using slaves?
@@logangerlach2372 That wasn't the question. The question was about the contribution of slavery to the accumulation of capital and wealth, It's contribution is undeniable. How rich will you become when you pay no wage and make people live like animals to produce your products, which you sell, and share no part of the sale with those who produced it? Friedman is a proven crank in economics whose ideas are dead and useless today. Please don;t scream "free market" back at me. No such market exists in the U.S.
Friedman's points have been extensively refuted!
Thank you for your question, Mitch Hedberg.
It really did remind me of Hedberg, and then i felt disrespectful towards the memory of Mitch
In the 70s people were interested in Friedman's opinion, in 2017 people are interested in Milo's and Ben's opinions.
Today, Friedman would be picketed, protested and deplatformed.
There are always people interested in listening to someone who makes the argument that the rich deserve to be richer, and the poor deserve to be even poorer.....
He’s really arguing for colonialism claiming it civilizes backwards people and that colonizing countries don’t gain anything from colonizing others. Instead they are doing this from the bottom of their hearts. Also claiming that the monopolization of cotton had no significant part in the economic rise of America. I disagree strongly with all three of these points.
So true
@Uba Chukwudi So how are things progressing now in decolonised Zimbabwe and South Africa?
@@popshaines5492 maybe
He never claimed they are doing this from the bottom of the hearts. He simply states that they failed to make money out of colonialism. They did, however, benefit the colonized. As a Greek, I attest to that. The British helped in the re-founding of our nation and benefited us greatly. Also brought democracy and the capitalist/semi-capitalist system.
@@makisxatzimixas2372 Wait, didn't democracy starts in Greece? I guess Britain brought it back, if I understand you correctly.
Although I find myself disagreeing with Milton´s overemphasis on capitalism and free market ideology, not once have I ever doubted the man´s humanism and compassion. People seem to think that he is callous or cynical and really, nothing could be more wrong. It is apparent he holds a deep reverence for humanity.
"Colonies are more trouble than they're worth," but the 'mother country' still doesn't pull out.
It's quite simple. If a people are so backwards and lacking in similar philosophical thought and technological progress to your own you benefit by controlling their land. To extract resources that they had no capability of harvesting, otherwise you would have just traded for it, it's cheaper faster and easier. Every resource cannot be produced everywhere on the planet, rubber and oil being the key examples throughout WW2 to the modern day. Gunpowder and it's various chemicals being key to Britain and it's conquest of India being another example. The reason why countries conquer each other and subjugate other nations through colonialism is because wealthy and powerful individuals benefit MASSIVELY if these projects. They gain power, influence and wealth all at once. Countries hold onto colonial nations partially because of the prestige too. It's sort of a mark of your industrial and military might, as well as your standing in the world. There are other non-material benefits, such as spreading your nations culture and religion that also drives this process. The White Man's Burden was key to colonialism from a European and American perspective. It also becomes a sunk cost fallacy, and most people who led nations and had control of countries during colonialism believed in what Milton Friedman says, the zero sum game idea. This idea has been key to colonialism, imperialism, nazism and marxism since their inceptions. By taking a colony you believe that your taking a larger chunk of the pie. In reality administrative costs damage your portion of the pie more than it's worth.
Prestige ,not money.
@erni muja Britains empire was a financial drain on Britain. I was amazed when i learned this because Marxists attack imperialism as economic.
@erni muja if their agenda is to do the right thing by those countries, you may be right. With all the resources they get from African countries, that's a lie. You've got cocoa farmers in French colonies who don't know what coco is used for, therefore they can't control the price of their own product. You've got kids in cobalt mines dying. Instead of helping African nations VALUE their people, they get what they want then speak ill of the people.
Eventually they pull out when they figure out that it's more trouble than it's worth. Colonization is similar to owning slaves. The benefit is not worth the cost. When you figure the cost of feeding clothing and housing slaves plus the cost of having guards to stop them from escaping, it would be cheaper to just pay them to work for you and let them pay for their own food clothing and shelter. Slavery kept the southern United States an agrarian society held back from progress. Whereas the northern states with no slavery were a modern industrial economy of their time.
claiming that maintaining a colony costs more then the benefits that derive from that colony goes against basic common sense
***** and the over all lives of the oppressor nation improves
Steadno How does it go against common sense, exactly? Projection of force across half the globe is incredibly costly today and was much more costly during the times of colonialism.
basic concept of weighing asset against liability.
+Steadno the empirical evidence of history show's it to be noting more than ego and vanity. The colonial powers all collapsed.
+Blonde Viking colonizing would have went away long ago if that was true. it boils down to new resources.
I appreciate the discussion, but Milton deliberately ignores the enormous extraction of wealth stolen from slaves and colony subjects to increase capital. That had nothing to do with free markets, but everything to do with government sanctioned stealing of wealth from the oppressed & giving it to the "higher ups" in the social caste.
It had everything to do with the free market. The laissez-faire capitalists used the British government to destroy foreign industries in colonized countries in order to prop themselves up. Just like how the US's United Fruit financed coups in South & Central America.
The problem is, in both colonial Britain, often mislabeled colonial America, and in nascent America and later, there was no open market capitalist economy for the native Anerican, the slave, the freed blacks, the chinese, etc. That did not come until later.
What I find most amazing is how calm and civil this debate passed off. Apparently the world view and the opinions of those two men were very different and yet, they were able to have a civilised discussion. Arguments were made and _listened to_, without interrupting or even completely silencing Mr. Friedman, even when some of the things he said apparently caused some unrest amongst the listeners. When and how did we lose this kind of discussion culture?
When the right went full natzi. That tends to stop people from engaging with your bad faith arguments.
The DRC is one of the richest countries in terms of resources but on the bottom in terms of per capita GDP. Western corporations have a keen interest in keeping it that way...
The people of the DRC are more responsible for keeping it that way. Strange that Western corporations did not seem to have a keen interest in keeping Singapore, South Korea or Taiwan 'that way'. LOL.
On the contrary all the humanitarian aid in DRC purely comes from Western countries. Not a single surrounding African nation contribute a dime of assistance to the DRC.
I know im on your side was jusy talking to this guy who thinks Singapore and South Korea have a lot of resources.
@@mudra5114 Jesus fucking christ read a history book
Your Marxist revelation from the transcendental Dialectic is noted.
What is Milton talking about Britain didn't have slaves? Britain bought and sold humans into slavery over a century (1660s-1800s) and even continued the practice in the colonies until decades later (1830s). That's not including their subjugation of other peoples like in South Asia.
Read up on the history of the Belgium Congo. I wonder how he would have tried to justify that?
Faigornx It is a prime example, one of the worst examples, of economic exploitation by the west. It’s horrors cannot be justified.
This guy has chosen to be selective on the examples particularly well speaking of India. To say more people suffered post independence is simply not true. Masses (hundreds of thousands) starved when Indian food banks were put aside for British military whilst Indian citizens starved, a move ordered by Churchill himself. Then mass killings and upheavals took place when Britain decided to partition India into what is now Pakistan. I don’t think this guy is ignorant to these facts, but has chosen to be selective to counter an argument.
So then it's Britain's fault and not Japan's? Japan had conquered Burma which disrupted the food supplies immensely. As well the British Empire was in a life or death struggle between two very deadly enemies in both Europe and Asia. Why is it always Britain's fault for things such as the Bengal Famine and not say Japan? I'm not saying that mistakes weren't made in Britain's case but to say that it was deliberately engaging in genocide for the sake of a few laughs while it was fighting a global war is the really tragedy here.
As far as the Bengal famine let me keep it short India and thus Bengal was at war (WW2) being a part of the British Empire at that time, Burma which was a supplier of rice As far as the Bengal famine let me keep it short India and thus Bengal was at war (WW2) being a part of the British Empire at that time, Burma which was a supplier of rice in case of famines earlier and was part of British Empire too was now a part of the Japanese Empire which was at active war with the British Empire at that time (there was armed confrontation in the Burma Bengal border regions between the forces of both the Empires), Churchill’s harsh reaction was rebuked by the Viceroy of British India, Governor General etc… who were all Brits, they used their own quota on ships to get as much food as possible into Bengal, The British Indian government had passed a law (Government of India act 1935) which gave more powers to the Indian provinces ten years earlier in nearly all domestic matters and the Punjab, a bread basket province refused to give food to Bengal, to their fellow Indians, the Central British Indian govt in Delhi had to force them to send food to Bengal (by breaking the government of India act 1935) due to which the Punjabis cried foul and anti British feelings there increased there with riots and revolutions, the mayor of Calcutta (Bengal) was an Indian as due to the law I mentioned earlier, Churchill had a change of heart and did sent food from other parts of the empire (mostly Australia) even though allied forces needed those resources, when Churchill asked U.S. president Roosevelt for some aid for the starving peoples of Bengal, the same Roosevelt who was arm twisting the British to give independence to India, flatly refused.
They (European Colonial Powers) also partitioned most of Africa, and it created the same affect.
Well india had a very har society before British liberal thinking was imorted fixedclass system, where some were doomed to overty!
Yep. FAmines were a regular feature of colonial India. For all the poverty, mismanagement and the rest of independent India, they averted the famines.
Well if it was so expensive for Britain to keep India as it's colonies why the hell did they wait till 1947, when their own economy was badly pummeled by the war and they could hardly afford to eat themselves. Only at the brink of their collapse did they relinquish India and that too after making permanent scars effects of which are still felt today. India was instrumental in both the war efforts contributing troops and material to the British Forces. A lot of sikhs fought in the trenches of somme in the first world and Churchill practically starved India to feed the troops in second world war. So I think Milton Friedman's point that Britain did not benefit from it's colony in India is total and utter falsehood
Maybe its location was critical precisely for the reason you bring up, as territory during WW2? I was wondering the same thing you were though. I remember reading that Britain and India fought the Japanese in territory just east of India, near the region formerly known as Burma. Nigeria also provided soldiers for the Allies during WW2, but they were a French colony I believe. Not sure how much impact that had, but the point is, colonies helped beyond economics in the most critical period of world history, perhaps ever.
They lie.
The Indians suffered greatly from the British war against the Japanese, That is one reason why the independence movement was able to push the British to grant freedom. Sadly, though, the religious problem caused a split that has g really handicapped development in the subcontinent.
I find it very debatable how he glossed over certain systems. The book 'Why nations fail' does this subject more justice because it doesn't try to ignore colonialism or treat it as some benign thing. However, the opposite narrative is also untrue, that the West wouldn't have been rich without its colonies. The capital markets opened by the discovery of the New World did in fact pave the way to the industrial revolution, but it was the critical juncture of the English civil war that really allowed for the advent of the industrial revolution, which then allowed Britain to become an empire and then exploit colonies further. The book is a very honest look on colonialism without resorting to basic bro historical materialism but without simply ignoring it like the hardcore libertarians often do. It does, however, agree with him that capitalism is pretty much necessary for a free system although it is not sufficient by itself.
‘The USA has never been a colonial country…’ Tell that to Native/First Nations people because that’s a bit historically inaccurate
He obviously meant not a colonial country in the sense that the USA is a colonial extension of the US empire. The British Empire had portions of Africa and Asia, and India a,d Australia, and Canada as extensions of it's empire. What we now call the USA was part of that empire but it declared it's independence and seceded.
Wait till you hear about how we got 37 extra states outside of the original 13 @@cnault3244
How about Dutch East Indies? Colonization of Indonesia was even marked the Golden age of Dutch Economy
I think it was a different type of colonialism. I'm not an expert or anything, but my family is from there. From my understanding, the Dutch East Indies was set up as a mega corporation under VOC. A business model of colony as opposed to farming colonies such as NZ or Aus. If anyone can expand on this I'd be grateful.
The Dutch economy has profited a few percent of BNP. Countries had to be rich already to be colonizing thousands of miles away from home. Growth is not a zero-sum-game but the idea that it is, will never go away because it is too convenient.
"Britain did not have slavery" WHAT
Britain had plantations in the west Indies ...carribean ......He suffers from what psychologist call cognitive bias
ok good point ……………………………………………………………………………………………..my response would be that America and Britain would have become wealthy countries even if they had not used slaves...…………………………………………………………………………………………………..America had good soil for lucrative crops, great mineral resources and was geographically difficult to attack…………….…………………………………………………………………………………………..the farmers could have just paid migrant workers to pick the cotton…………….………………………………………………………………………………………….and Britain started the industrial revolution so they were guaranteed to become wealthy
His point is that the British empire did, even if it was one of the first to abolish it, but the British isles themselves were largely free of slave labour (or none if you solely include traded slaves from africa) - with the exception of money brought in by the slave trade itself
I say the same thing: what, what, what 😁What is he talking about. It is a well documented fact that Britain had slaves in its colonies.
You dumbasses. Britain didn't have slavery within its own borders.
He will not be truthful or honest, but he will be glad to answer.
Milton making the questionable-cause logical fallacy in his opening arguments gotta love it
If colonization cost more than the benefits, then why did the West expand colonization and maintain the practice for as long as they did? Seems to defy rational self-interest.
@Eric Maclennan In the long term the slave and colony holding countries got a headstart. They extracted seed value from slaves and colonies, and constructed arguably the first recorded global trade system to service the wealth extraction and human abduction. We know that a global trade system provides a powerful engine for capitalism and it was a powerful tool for the European cultures that controlled it. I think this is what people talk about when they say the genesis of capitalism is in slavery and colonialism. It could have happened in a better way but it didn't. The ramifications of the emergence of early capitalism with those kinds of incentives are still being felt in our current era.
@Krishnan Unni Madathil great comment.. are you an economics student?
There was no "West" doing so, but a medeival thinking inspired from the religion of the East!
> Seems to defy rational self-interest. They rejected rational self-interest for make the colonizing nation great.
@Eric Maclennan Slavery rejects the independent ,productive mind of the slave. Its a low-production economy. Capitalism (individual rights) is vastly more productive. See _Atlas Shrugged_. Capitalism ended ancient slavery. Socialism is the return of slavery, egalitarian slavery.
Back when you could just talk about ideas....today there would be protests and riots outside the venue
Because people realized that these kind of ideas are a waste of time, people already fought wars over them, these ideas always result in conflicts.
I would say his assessment of India is not correct. He does not look at the period before the British colonized India. He does not consider that if people want independence then they definitely had a problem with British rule so it can't be all good. India is truly a democracy as the central government plays only a small role in the lives of the people. That is changing now. In India there is no way for the rich to completely insulate themselves from the poor as there are no completely insulated communities. In the western world, the rich and poor are kept separate and poverty is hidden. In India if a person wants to make a living, he has the freedom to run his own small business to make ends meet. In India there are so many street vendors and they are part of the fabric of life there and so people find many ways to make a living. In the western nations to keep the streets clean, the poor are given money and you need licenses to operate any kind of business. In this way people are giving up a little control over their lives. India is messy but it is real and people have freedom.
And this dude won a Nobel prize wtf
Yes. What's your point?
In economics, not polysci or history.
So did Ben Bernanke. What's your point?
4:39 - Milton Friedman is absolutely right in pointing out that people will always migrate to areas where there is the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity
Thats why a true free market should allow labor to move freely across boarders. Right now only capital and manufacturing is free to move across boarders while labor is in-prisoned within the boarders of the country they were born it.
That's why people are leaving new York, and California and moving to Texas and Florida...Republican states...
People will migrate where they BELIEVE there is the greatest amount of freedom. People aren't actual rational agents, they are fooled by their own cognitive bias. Milton Friedman's way of thinking is very simplistic.
Thus we see the results of China on HongKong people move. Right about that.
Try and picture this conversation taking place on a modern campus.🤔
This is how people learn from each other and eradicate ignorance.
It is funny how people post Freidman thinking it supports the case for free market capitalism and freedom. They post this clip as a supposed refutation of those who suggest that slavery and colonization were significant factors in the rise of Western economic powers. Those who are looking to justify their current politics tune in here for a quick fix. What they miss is that Freidman completely dismissed slavery as a significant factor and ignores the fact that the wealth of nations like Great Britain did, in fact, come from colonization. It becomes too expensive AFTER the colonized begin to resist. I can see why many of you fall for Friedman's slight of hand, but those who actually read theory know better.
Having grown up in Canada in a middle class family i was educated, but aquired no wisdom untill my 20s, and have been learning ever since. i now live in my 40s in semi poverty. i dont have huge debt because ive chosen to live within my means and work hard to get ahead and save for the future and my family. milton is spot on. this rise in socialism and endless printing of money no one actually has is destroying everything.. i can see that quite clearly..
Are you blaming your semi poverty conditions on the state?
Tom Scott, here's capitalism's tally. This whole death count thing is silly by the way. I believe Friedman has a video where he debates with the same kid from this video on deaths from a car manufacturers that neglected to install a $13 dollar part. Friedman says what if it cost $200 million to install that part? Would that be worth saving a life? Friedman then concluded its incorrect to argue this way because the kid is not speaking about principles but amount and then advances a utilitarian argument about factoring risk into the price of the car and leaving it up to the discretion of the consumer on whether or not to pay more for safety. I ask you to apply Friedman's same logic here, what does it matter about amount? If capitalism takes 500 million lives and communism takes a billion? Is taking 500 million lives admirable? Shouldn't we been talking about principles and abandon this whole scorecard baseball stats murder index? Anyway, here is the death toll starting with what happened to the indigent peoples of the Americas (North and South) when met by the colonizers. Yes, they were capitalists! Capitalists in the form of mercantilists! Don't you split hairs with me Tom Scot lol. Extermination of indigenous Americans 1492-1890: 100 million Atlantic slave trade of Africans 1500-1870: 15 million French attempted repression of Haiti slave revolt 1791-1803: 150,000 French conquest of Algeria 1830-47: 300,000 The Opium Wars in China 1839-42 & 1856-60: 50,000 Irish potato famine 1845-49: 1 million British suppression of the Indian Mutiny 1857-58: 100,000 Massacre of the Paris Commune 1871: 20,000 Famine under British colonialism in India 1876-79 & 1897-1902: 29 million Military and police repression of labor strikes in the United States 1877-1938: 700 Blacks lynched in the United States 1882-1964: 3,445 Belgian exploitation of the Congo 1885-1908: 10 million United States conquest of the Philippines 1898-1913: 250,000 British concentration camps in South Africa 1899-1902: 28,000 French exploitation of Equatorial African rainforest 1900-40: 800,000 German extermination of the Herero and Namaqua 1904-07: 65,000 The First World War 1914-18: 10 million White Army pogroms against Jews 1917-20: 100,000 Italian fascist conquests in Africa 1922-43: 600,000 Japanese imperialism in East Asia 1931-45: 10 million Fascist terror in Spain 1936-39: 200,000 Nazi terror/concentration & extermination camps 1939-45: 25 million Allied bombing of German and Japanese civilians 1942-45: 1 million(inc. over 200,000 Japanese in atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) Kuomintang massacre in Taiwan 1947: 30,000 French repression of anti-colonial revolt in Madagascar 1947: 80,000 Israeli colonization of Palestine 1948-present: 30,000 British repression of the Mau-Mau revolt 1952-60: 50,000 Algerian war of independence 1954-62: 1 million Military juntas in Guatemala 1954-96: 200,000 Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier regime in Haiti 1957-86: 50,000 Vietnam War 1963-75: 3.4 million Massacre of communists in Indonesia 1965-66: 1 million Tlatelolco massacre in Mexico City 1968: 400 US bombing of Laos and Cambodia 1969-75: 700,000 Nicaragua civil war(s) 1972-90: 80,000 Pinochet dictatorship in Chile 1973-90: 3,197 Angola civil war 1974-92: 500,000 East Timor massacres 1975-98: 200,000 Mozambique civil war 1975-90: 1 million Argentina "Dirty War" 1976-82: 30,000 El Salvador military dictatorship 1977-92: 70,000 Kwanju massacre 1980: 1,000 Bophal Union Carbide disaster 1984: 16,000 US invasion of Panama 1989: 3,000 UN embargo against Iraq 1991-2003: 1 million(inc. 500,000 children under the age of 12) Destruction of Yugoslavia 1992-95: 200,000 Capitalist coup de tat in Russia 1993: 2,000 Rwandan genocide 1994: 800,000 Congolese civil war 1997-present: 6 million Indian farmer suicides 1997-present: 199, 132 NATO occupation of Afghanistan 2001-present: 30,000 US invasion and occupation of Iraq 2003-present: 1.2 million 5 years of drone strikes used to maintain US military dominance in the Middle East for the purpose of securing trade routes and oil reserves - 2,400 Syrian Civil War caused by the US’ funding of Syrian rebels as well as the terrorist organization Al Nusra in an attempt to overthrow the Syrian government - at least 146,000 US Funded and NATO Intervention in Libya for the sake of overthrowing the government and getting oil - estimates range from 10,000 by the deniers, to 50,000 by the rebels. The commonly accepted number by the US is 30,000 dead United States backed government of Sri Lanka for the sake of maintaining trade routes and neo-liberal foothold in southern Asia - 100,000 dead (some sources say 40,000 not including the huge numbers of civilians) US bombing of Pakistan for the War on Terror and to maintain our imperial dominance abroad - 50,000 US and Mexican War on Drugs to maintain a monopoly and to support military spending as well as drug cartel violence for profit - 47,000
Scott McLennan A simple question. Canada is about the same size geographically as the US. with about 1/10th the population. So the natural assumption would be that Canada has about the same amount of natural resources. Thusly shouldn't the net worth of every Canadian be 10 times more?
sweetie pies
dumpdigger dave Zero sum game gibberish. Capitalist investors do more good than anybody. Poverty is less of an issue than ever. How in the world can you even be so wrong about something?? While it’s relative wealth that matters more, as life is about happiness and relative wealth is what contributes to happiness, if you’re talking about absolute wealth, poor people in first world countries have it pretty damn good by historical standards. And that translates to a much higher life expectancy than the historical norm. Wealth supports medical technology and sanitation.
then why did britain colonize india ...then why colonize at all?
THENDO MANYATSHE Britain was genius in exploits of colonization. They tattooed their images and system of oppression into the very mines and souls of the countries they mounted.
exactly. didn't profit? Then why the blood and treasure and repression. There are stages of colonialism. The end game is always ugly.
denying trade routes to their enemies.
Britain went there to trade. In Bengal, the Nawab attacked the British and killed many Brits in the black hole of Calcutta. In the retribution against the Bengal Nawab, the British ended up conquering Bengal. Indian was full of people conquering each other like the Mughals, Marathas etc.. and the British just came up on top. Not only did they end up triumping over the Great Indian powers, they defeated other European powers like the French and Portuguese too. British rule brought stability and rule of law into the Indian subcontinent. Besides there was European competition. The Brits could not leave India because they were afraid the French or the Russians from the north (Great game in Afghanistan) would get it. Besides the the Brits were afraid that if they left India, the upper caste would take over the country and exploit the lower castes as before. Only after the lower caste leader Dr. Ambedkar wrote a constitution guaranteeing equality to all that the British leave India.
They made a profit, though it was smaller than you would expect. Still, Friedman is lying.
Gil Scott Herron came prepared!
While Friedman makes good points, I think he utterly minimizes the value of slavery and colonies for wealth accumulation in pre-industrial or early industrial societies. Which is very different to saying that it was a 'net negative' when looking back hundreds of years. The early industrial societies were voracious in their need for raw materials, and slavery and colonialism were like rocket fuel for those societies. It also helped catapult a young nation like the US into the world economy. For someone who prided himself on clarity and corrected that young man by saying 'I never said that where there's capitalism there's freedom,' the young man, if given a chance, could have retorted 'I never said slavery did not have subsequent economic costs that are still being felt today - this is the curse of slavery.' But it's like saying because a bank robber lived high off the hog off his ill gotten gains for decades until the law finally caught up with him, that means he did not benefit economically from his crime.
I honestly can't see how that person asking the question is being rude or disrespectful. If anything he is trying to put his question into context. He is simply standing his ground. I do think Friedman s response is quite superficial and ignores tons of evidence that the western powers greatly benefited economically from the resources their colonial possessions brought them at times to the detriment of colonized people. Edmund Burke the great conservative mind himself opposed certain colonial policies in India. Should white people be demonized? No. Almost everyone since the dawn of time has had slaves or exploited workers. But the facts are facts. And just like us conservatives say: facts don't care about your feelings.
Then put your facts in proper connection to all other facts. Capitalism doesn't require slavery, and non-Capitalist countries have practiced slavery for longer and under worse conditions than the west. So, they are guilty of greater crimes and for longer periods of history, and they only stopped slavery because the WEST forced them to. In any blame game, you must hold non western countries as the WORST OFFENDERS, who owe everyone else first.
@@randalglyph602 did you even read my comment? I don't blame anyone Randal. I'm simply pointing out certain facts. The west didn't force anyone to stop slavery. Slavery was abolished because it broke certain perceived Christian moral codes (which are semitic in origin not western). The United States was one of the last countries to abolish slavery if that's what you mean by "the west". Europe had abolished slavery years before. I don't see why you make this a comparison game (you were worst off before blah blah). Now, just because everyone has practiced slavery doesn't make it right. But it's senseless to point fingers in my opinion. We've got more important problems to overcome at the moment.
@@ramon2008 Sounds like you didn't prove anything with only claims. European countries were not the worst offenders.
@@DatcleanMochaJo do you people read comments or just sorta skim through them. i never claimed europe was worse than anyone. I quote myself "Almost everyone since the dawn of time has had slaves or exploited workers." I'm simply saying that European colonization like ALL colonization comes at the detriment of the colonized. Jesus Christ come on guys read the comments!
dont demonize demons
If colonization and slavery was losing money, then why did they continue to do it for hundreds and hundreds of years?
Probably because enough of the richest players were doing very well indeed to keep the whole scheme afloat even as they eventually realized that over long periods of time they were seeing negative outcomes and were up to their necks in red ink.
he's lying
Ryan's Tasty Licks Exactly. Because this white man has a Eurocentric view of life and is full of shit. Britain never had slaves? Yes, not on British soil, but they did in the colonies. And the US never had/doesn’t have colonies? OK.
@@BE-bk1tb True. The british were one of the main participants in the slave trade and probably made trillions. Indians did not benefit or do better under british colonialism that's also a lie.
Thank you for the clarification everyone
Does anybody knows the name of Jacob Viner study?
We experienced a fast rate of growth in living standards, live span, real wages, & working conditions *after* slavery was abolished.