4 vs 1 | Milton Friedman faces FOUR British Leftists in HEATED Debate (1980)
2023 ж. 2 Қар.
291 556 Рет қаралды
Milton Friedman debates 4 British Leftists on Government intervention
4 British Leftists:
- Industrialist Lord Kearton
- Socialist politician Eric Heffer
- Cambridge University Economics Professor Bob Rowthorn
- Economist Peter Jay
vs
1 Free Market American:
- Economist Milton Friedman
Debate took place in London, 1980.
Watch the full debate here:
• BBC discussion with Mi...
My government takes my $100, then spends $120 on $70 of stuff that I didn't ask for.
Wow. That is brilliant. I don't put bumper stickers on my car, but I'd make an exception for that.
GodD*amn, you should become an economics professor. Everybody with finally understand the game.
And then tells you they gave you a benefit and expects you to thank and worship them for it.
Frank..In one sentence you captured the essence of the American governments in the last 30 yeas or so...both Democratic and Republican. That quote should be mentioned in every economics 101 class around the world! Well done, Sir!
I agree with everything but the $70. It’s more like $20.
The only difference between these leftists and modern ones is they actually would talk to people with a different opinion.
The USSR was still around so they felt more confident.
These people aren't leftists. The vast majority of people think that libertarianism is nonsense and Friedman just refuses to address the fact that historically biggest economic recoveries have been top down. Directed by the state. He's in a political cult.
I'm a socialist. I can't get any kind of honest argument from any "capitalist" (which isn't what you are, but well) on any matter political or economical. It's just capitalist realism all the way. Generations have been lost to this brain rot.
@thomaswikstrand8397 It's not capitalism, it's people that use capitalism. One of our founding fathers once said, this country will only work with moral and religious people. Do you see much of that around?
Why are perfectly reasonable comments being deleted? Are you not all Libertarians lol
Milton is still famous and the others non consequential
Very true.
Good Lord, anyone adored by the ultra-rich will be made "famous" whether they deserve to be or not.
Yes he literally helped sell the messed up world we now live in
The US hasn't had free trade since the 19th century. The US is a super highly regulated and taxed fascist regime.
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rpWhere you have an iPhone and fast internet? Grass is greener dude, go live in China if you want more government
Seems to me UK economists were panicking in 1980 over Friedman's growing influence and the BBC set up 'a hit' via this debate. They underestimated him completely.
Did they ever!!!
Yeah and look at the mess he created: Britain is a deindustrialised husk attached to a failed casino which keeps needing massive bailouts
Bingo, they knew Thacher was going Miltons way. This is a classic British mainstream media tactic. It’s not a debate, it’s a trial.
@@jettjones9889 Yes and look at the consequences: an almost entirely privatised state, vast sums of tax payers money funnelled into a tiny number of private pockets, trillion pound bank bailouts, hundreds of billions in QE handed to hedge funds and a surveillance state to keep watch over any opposition
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rpeverything you complained about is regulated by government. Why have brexit and not establishing free trade 😂 it’s ludicrous lol.
I like how this is considered heated at the time. Modern debate really has degenerated .
Have you actually seen any modern debates, besides Ben Shapiro & friends? Intelligence Squared debates are a generally as civil as this. Stop repeating a trope.
Hard to debate with people who treat their opinions like facts. Libertarians need to abandon this idea of having found the only correct ethic, it's like talking to religious zealots.
Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz were fantastic, also see Ben Shapiro and Ana Kasparian
It's heated in that the leftists are rude, interrupting, and provocative. The only real difference today is they would threaten him with violence.
@@tomh281between Ben and friends yes or moreso colleagues. But Ben cannot do debates with many people because they either refuse, or take the opportunity to slander him and take quotes out of context the entire time such as Fuentes. But the conversation between Ben and Destiny should be a good example of people talking about differences in opinion peacefully and with open minds but yet thousands of people online even take that as bad since they didn’t repeat their own narratives.
This aged like milk. Especially that bloke talking about Sweden and France
Japan too, Japan hit it’s crisis right after this
lmao yes
Germany's also going down the pan.
Germany, France, Japan and Sweden all have a better standard of life than the US you absolute muppets
@@stumac869 Make that Western Europe in general. UK, France, ...
"He doesn't allow anyone else to get a word in." Freedman: *Smiling*
and they kept talking and talking without interruption :D
Friedman was sussed out clearly. A Buffon selling a religion
@@brunods4560 Well history has proven Friedman to be correct and these guys to be absolutely wrong.
@@Daetalus67 delusional you are. Friedman proved himself wrong, even then, over and over again. Anyone with half a brain can call out the bollocks he vomits.
@@Daetalus67How so? And even if true could have been a stroke of luck! I'm sure in any case each side is neither completely right nor completely wrong! Your statement definitely is! . Waiting for a response
“We’ll that says something very bad about A level economics in this country”. Didn’t even flinch 😂
At the time, the "mixed economy" was taught as orthodoxy - it was one reason why I did not study A-Level Economics. These lefties keep on about West Germany, but that was rebuilt by Erhard's Wirtschaftswunder, which was all free market economics.
@@davidhollins870 All progress from high tech and credit are coming from public funding .. Isn't that elementary ?
@@dsgio7254 Yes, of course Apple and Microsoft are publicly-funded. However did I miss that?
@@davidhollins870 Most likely... But it is OK ... Many people miss it, All expensive components - high tech ( GPS, touch screens, digital signal , the internet, computers, all components of smart phones ) are public funded inventions ... + capital from the public sector saved banks . ..
@@davidhollins870 MOst likely ,, yes But this is ok. Most people miss it, All inventions of expensive components of computers smart phones are public funded : GPS, the Internet, touch screens, digital signal etc are public funded ..
As a Brazilian myself, I find amusing seeing Brazil being brought up to debate as a good example of something aside drug trafficking. The only words that still stand up today come only from Mr. Friedman's mouth.
Yeah Pinochet's Chile was wonderful. Neoliberalism has demonstrably been horrendous.
Chile is a paradise compared to the rest of Latin America. Come to Brazil and you will see what is horrendous.@@JG-es5dj
@@JG-es5djBecause of Neoliberalism, Denmark was saved from the economic crisis which Sweden experienced in the early 1990's. The only thing that isn't Neoliberal about Scandinavian socities today is the large welfare state and believe me those arent gonna be substainble for very long either
@@JG-es5djChile is actually a wonderful country. Definitely where I would choose to live if I had to move to South America.
@@wilhelm2.769 sources for anything you just said?
These Brits must have cried rivers when thatcher came in
They still are crying
Yeah the cow has destroyed our country!
Thatcher trashed the country .
Tbf, millions of Brits cried throughout the 80s.
Mrs Thatcher was elected in 1979.
I lived in England at the time his was filmed. As an American, England at that time seemed very poor to me. At that time, the British government owned and ran the coal mines, steel mills, ship building, phone company, airlines, natural gas, and more. When I returned 35 years later, I was blown away at how rich England seemed -- in large due to the fact that the government had sold off all those assests and the private sector raised wages and spurred new investment.
How very very wrong you are . The Thatcher government sold off all these assets to their friends and backers and now most things in the UK including energy , are beyond the reach of even working people. ALzL these assets you mentioned are now complete and utter disasters all of which get regular government bail outs. Except the coal mines, there are none anymore .
We are absolutely poorer as a result of that privatisation I can tell you that. The last 20 years has seen a massive decline in standards of living across the board in the UK, as the chickens have come home to roost, the rate of price increases for all commodities, services and goods have far exceeded that initial boost of wages that were seen after privitisation. The only people who are richer are those who got rich from selling all our publicly owned enterprises. We no longer have fishing, ship building, steel, manufacturing etc, because the companies that bought everything up packed up shop and moved to third world countries to increase their profit margins.
Wages & real capital investment both stagnated or declined - those are facts. Industrial output plummeted to the lowest of all developed countries. Some bankers and property developers in London got very rich, basically at the expense of everybody else. I'd wager the main reason country *looked* richer in the 90s than 70s because 100 years of chimney soot was systematically removed from pre-war buildings in the 80s. Amazing the difference that made
@@edwardmcdermott8326 "... I can tell you that. " You can talk as much utter garbage as you like. "The last 20 years has seen a massive decline in standards of living across the board in the UK" Straight lie. "the rate of price increases for all commodities, services and goods have far exceeded that initial boost of wages that were seen after privitisation" Another set of lies mixed with BS. Prices for privatised industries went down (for example gas prices fell 26% initially). Some commodities have since gone up due to government interference (gas again, as well as electricity and vehicle fuels, which all push up other prices). The current problems with prices are caused by inflation due to insane government policy of closing down most of the country for large chunks of 2020 and 2021 for no good reason at all. The exception is housing, which is expensive due to the insane government policy of letting unrestricted number of people immigrate.
So, you think comparing stagflation aftermath and Thatcherism with 35 years later proves your assumptions? Lol😂 How naive and misinformed are you?
I was studying economics at university in the late 70s when the UK economy was in the toilet after decades of Keynesianism, and the ideas of the Chicago Monetarist school were being debated. Any rational analysis showed that state spending (based on high taxes and/or borrowing) squeezed out private investment, entre-preneurship, and the desire to work. On the absurd assumption that politicians and civil servants can spend peoples' money more effectively than the individuals who know the value of their own money.
private investment and entrepreneurship aren't necessarily valuable prima facie. In some industries - healthcare being a prime example - they may help to foster innovation, but they also incentivise profiteering and shareholder capital-led decision making, rather than benefits to the consumer. This is why the USA produces many of the world's most important healthcare breakthroughs (which is good - albeit often in concert with generous support and subsidies from the USA - a point many economic liberals would like to ignore), but also consistently fails a substantial portion of its own population with the world's most expensive, and very often inadequate, healthcare services. The USA ranks in the bottom quartile for life expectancy among OECD nations, despite having the highest per capita costs. Somebody's winning from this formulation, but it isn't healthcare service users. It's life sciences corporations and their private and institutional shareholders. By contrast, the hated statists in Germany and France deliver far superior results at significantly lower costs, by providing a more efficient service. As the economists in the video stated - neoliberalism is a religion.
@@alexanderjamescrawford6781 “Entrepreneurship” (internally, known as intra-preneurship, as well as for the private individual) is defined as the cost of risk an individual, or firm, takes in as a result of an action. Net negative, as well as positive. As it is also observable in the production function.
@@alexanderjamescrawford6781 How is profiteering bad? without it the price mechanism wouldn't work, higher prices attracts investment to increase production, modernisation (automation) and efficiency and ultimately reduces prices in the long run when demand equalises The alternative to profiteering is price fixing which leads to shortages and stagnation. Also ultimately all decisions must benefit the consumer in a competitive environment, in order to profit you must offer better products and services and improved efficiency is reflected on the bottom line. You're also ignoring that US healthcare is not free market, it is heavily influenced by state regulation.
...worse, the supposition is that some bureaucrat not only knows the value but in fact creates that value.
@@jamesandrew1750 You're missing a crucial distinction between profit making and profiteering. I have no objection to the premise of making a profit on the supply of goods and services - I am, after all, not some starry eyed communist. Without the profit motive, economies undoubtedly suffer both in terms of inputs (investment, labour competitiveness etc.) and outputs (innovation, automation etc.). However, this is not what profiteering is. Profiteering is usually defined as the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical (for example monopolistic behaviour, collusion to fix prices, misleading consumers etc.), - practices that abound in unregulated industries. The notion that laissez-faire markets regress to perfect competitiveness as oversight from governments recede (as Friedman is essentially asserting here) is a risible one, as we have seen them actively deliver many of the evils you're decrying here - monopolies and cartels that collude to fix prices, prioritisation of executive pay and shareholder dividends, without satisfactory investment in service quality (as is rampant in the utility monopolies here in the UK) and real wage stagnation due to underinvestment in the workforce. To pretend these are only the outcomes in centrally planned economies is patently untrue - we're living through the failure of under-regulation in both the UK and (to an even greater extent) in the US, where the economy is booming but the benefits are largely realised by a handful of plutocrats, while the general population feels poorer than ever before. This, my friend, is profiteering. In summary, I believe there is plenty of clear blue sky between centrally planned economies and the free market fundamentalism of Friedman. But to find a true equilibrium, you undoubtedly need a strong governmental and regulatory backstop to prevent profiteering, which can be just as destructive a force in stifling innovation and destroying economic dynamism as an interventionist government.
As an Englishman these "lefties" embarassed me.Friedman was gracious and handled their immaturity with aplomb and class.
They aren't leftists. No sensible person seriously thinks that libertarianism is a viable option for running a stable economy
@@Hiberno_sperg Sure libertarianism is bad, but bailouts, subsidies, printing money, and putting money in private pockets through government contracts are good.
@@happy_thinking stick it to that straw man.
As an Englishman,Your grammar and spelling offends me.
@@franciscouch8378 That should be "offend me"not "offends me".Oh the irony!!.You tried though.
Interesting how the brits keep interrupting and making disparaging personal attacks and Milton just smiles back at them
I thought it was just a trait of religious left where ever it raises it ugly head in the world.
Cuz he knows he owns them. It's like debating children.
These Brits were speaking and thinking much more emotionally than rationally. That is a common sign of knowing you're about to be defeated. I wish us Brits had listened to Friedman - what a brilliant mind he was.
The leftists are the real fascists, bigoted; they try and discredit and belittle anyone with a different ideology to themselves.
A lion isn't bothered by the worries of sheep
What kind of intellectual agrees to be part of a four-man hit team on another intellectual?
A socialist one.
@@doronl7254😂
Marxist
Four that are sure he is wrong.
Pseudo-intellectuals, that's who.
How dare the great Milton Friedman tell us British that heavy-handed government isn’t the panacea!
if UPS provide bad service, I go to Fedex, if Fedex gives bad service I go to UPS. And both have better service than the USPS... I would never want my hospital to be the the DMV.
And what if there was no good service?
@@raydarableIn the hospital or the Shipping industry?
@@DaveSmith-pm2yq Either.
The question of good service is fairly simple. The free market can generally calibrate itself in the long term. The medical industry today is heavily subsidized by regulations and tax cut-outs (corporate welfare.) An actual free market would encourage more competition. Also, the private sector will never be perfect, but it will be better than uncle Sam. Better is all we need to make it worthwhile. Like the UPS & Fedex in my area that have out performed USPS in my area.
@@DaveSmith-pm2yq Fair, but what if things don't work out that way?
Four weak Keynesian reps vs a dimuitive but giant neoclassical economics brain. And he still shredded them to bits.
“Profiteering is the result of inflation and not the cause “ ~ Keynes Harsh on Keynes to link him with these radicals and the radicals of today.
@@roughhabit9085 Keynes like marx is a hero to communist. Friedman like Hayek is a hero to capitalist. Even though Hayek and Friedman detested one another.
@@jeff-hh9mcNo one gives a shit how they felt about each other.
@@johnwallace3990 I didn’t ask you if they did.
@@jeff-hh9mc Keynes has nothing to do with communism. Dude was saying essentially the same thing as Hayek just in the opposite direction. Hayek was saying save money to invest while Keynes was saying when times are bad spend money to get the economy going and save when it's doing well. This is a very simplified example, but both are capitalists not communists.
Oooh those Brits, especially the english, love their government intervention. They argue for it, practically beg for it. And then blame it for all their woes in the same breath😂
What?
Because left wing Brits don’t work they don’t look after their kids they don’t feed their kids they expect the tax payer to do it. When they don’t give enough they call the government nasty. Issue is when you give a man a fish he won’t fish. If you teach a man to fish he can feed his family forever. In the uk you can get more on benefits than working so why would they work.
Pretty accurate tbf
Not all of us - but the lefties rule academia now. And our so-called ‘centre-right’ party is now a high tax/high spend/high intervention party.
Really? It's usually thatcher
Ronald Reagan had it summed up well. The nine most dangerous words in the English language are, “I am the government, I am here to help.”
Hmm pretty sure that was inspired by Friedman’s favourite Thoreau quote “ If I knew for a certainty that someone was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, then I should run for my life “
Yet he still decided to “help” with the NFA. He also continued the “help” that Nixon started with the war on drugs.
@@roughhabit9085 Reminds of a team of lawyers and brokers who sat me down after my father's death, telling me how they here to rescue me, that I should leave everything up to them. Right away I knew they were a bunch of jerkoffs. I'm a little crazy but my skepticism saved me and my family. I smiled like an idiot, told them that all sounded great and never went near those snakes again. That was 14 years ago. In a few months I will cash out. The payoff is tens of millions and my siblings, mom and their children are much more secure. The point: Rely on no one but the closest of family. Government or any outsiders are always the enemy.
We're currently headed fast towards what the political Left now calls a "war economy".
@@Conradlovesjoy the point is government has become very corrupted and the justice has to prevail.
I swear we’re just living in a time loop
You will all be glad to hear that (according to his Wikipedia entry) Prof Emeritus Bob Rowthorn has never troubled industry with his genius; he has spent his entire working life in academia.
😂
And preaching his poison to aspiring bureaucrats. Great.
@@roughhabit9085 Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell both spent their entire careers in either academia or government. Pot meet kettle lol
@@Hiberno_spergYet they looked at the systems and recognized one system failed the individual. Capitalism has led to more freedom and economic growth for the individual.
@@DCosgrove82 Capitalism can't be avoided. Friedmans argument is that free markets lead to the best outcome. That's basically a secular religious belief.
Wow! The language, the vocabulary, the mannerism.. regardless of left or right or whatever, what a fascinating and entertaining discussion in the most gentleman'ly manner I've ever seen.
Yes the cultural decline in the use of language is as sad as the intervention of the economy by governments.
Notice, at no time, did the Socialists call him a racist to try and win their point. Interesting that their examples are all economies which stagnated after this because of government policies.
This was before we all dropped in IQ from leaded gasoline. People are genuinely dumber these days despite advanced technology.
Yeah, We really miss that nowadays
True, that's something to be missed, the ability to argue eloquently.
“The View” circa 1980.
Sounds about right considering how old the panel looks today
This is infuriating “your not giving evidence your just using examples and you have none besides Japan” after he literally gave you 4 examples and plenty of evidence to back up each example. How are they not embarrassed
He didn't but. He was asked why he was basically deceptive about the level of government intervention into the Japanese economy and he just rambled about currency which has nothing to do with anything. Did you actually listen or did you just wait for Friedman to speak?
@@Hiberno_sperg did you? 😂😂😂 he clearly states he’s only talking about import export and tariffs he wasn’t being deceitful he gave more then one example other then Japan and he gave evidence to support each of those examples I’m a neutral as I don’t have an opinion on this one way or the other and he obviously destroyed them with facts while all they had to argue with was attempts of discrediting what he was saying with nothing more then conjecture
@@Hiberno_sperg You’re doing the same thing the British socialists did, you’re not head to debate you’re here to attack, clearly.
@@KingKing-cz6xh yeah and now the EU for the very regulations that these people are touting as being the savior of the prosperity of the modern world is now crippiling the economy of every modern western world, the US for example by 2035 is going to be on the conservative end 70 trillion dollars in debt. the EU as a whole the gas and energy shortage on top of the housing crisis and the job market which is absolutely horrendous there. theres a fucking reason that there arent any small businesses anymore in large production industries, the government subsidies and then bails out the bad decisions of big businesses completely overshadowing the opportunites that smaller businesses would ever get. they literally did it real time multiple times with the banks, housing, tv even, airliner companies got some of the most corrupt subisdies and bailouts to date.
“If it were not for the intervention of the government, the British wouldn’t be where they are now”. Damn right! At the time this interview was conducted, Britain was the poor man of Europe.
It takes 4 leftists to attempt to debate one capitalist.
More like three liberals, one libertarian & one socialist. That makes four capitalists in one debate.
It takes 1 dumb youtube right winger to identify 1 capitalist in a room with 4 capitalists
@@farzanamughal5933lmao. Your comment is just as dumb as the three socialist in the video
@@farzanamughal5933lmao talking about dumb. There's one socialist in that group. Where did you get the fourth capitalist? You loony lefties can't even get the facts straight let alone correcting someone. How comical.
@@farzanamughal5933lmao talking about d_umb. There's one socialist in that group. Where did you get the fourth capitalist? You loony lefties can't even get the facts straight let alone correcting someone. How comical.
Milton Friedman a genius. After reading Friedman read The Road to Serfdom by Hayek.
Amazing book!
Yes! Capitalism and Freedom then The Fatal Conceit then the Road to Serfdom.
The government has been very successful in the economies of Japan and Sweden LOL. Boy, that didn't age well. 😂😂😂😂😂
😅😢
Both have a significantly better standard of living than the US dummy
Japan not so much. Sweden yes and no. While Sweden does have high taxes they also have school choice, and very favorable business taxes and entrepreneurship. Not sure about taxes in Sweden. From what I remember Sweden was very socialist till the 80s and the country went to shit. At one point taxes were so high more than 100% which is as ridiculous as it sounds. In the 90s they implemented quite a few libertarian policies and have seen decent growth.
@@happy_thinking Japan has the highest GDP deficit in the world so that's not a good point to use here and the way the Chinese car economy is going is bad news for Japan. Sweden is doing ok but their people have very little spare money because their taxes and social security payments are very high. So here's an example. Person A goes to higher education, has children, gets all of the social benefits etc in exchange for their taxes - for someone who leads this life its ok. Person B. Doesn't go to higher education and never has children so there's no maternity or paternity benefits for them the trade off is bad because they'll pay higher taxes and social security but never actually use most of where the money is going to. A lot of people in scandinavia don't like the system because they don't have much spare money as other countries.
@happy_thinking Sweden learned and they are now more of a capitalist nation that the U.S.
Looking back at the malaise that has impacted Japan for the last 30 years, these people berating Prof Friedman look to be complete fools.
As you watch these interventionist economists call for the virtue of government control, consider that in such a society economists of that nature become indispensable advisors to the government about how and why to control this or that. Such economists make a better living in a society in which their advice is constantly needed by the government that regulates and the companies that manage regulation. Intellectuals seeking power are the very people you want far from power.
Good call. Don't learn economics from someone who wants your vote.
Friedman spent his entire career in universities and government departments. He is a massive hypocritie
@@PGHEngineer 35% of the students in the University are paying their dues with federal funding and the receive government research grants.
I don''t know, Keynes did a pretty good job in that role.
Google the Chicago boys
No wonder why Thatcher won.
How to get a woman elected? Have her opponents be socialists
Yeah how did that work out? She got rid of Britains entire industrial Base and primary sector because she was a free market zealot like Friedman.
Why
She trashed the country.
@@charvakaelysium2414 Really? How so?
As a brazilian, the english economists couldn't be more wrong.
As a brazilian, I resent our soça military. If they pulled a pinochet and called freedmen, we would be a world power instead of a joke.
Look at the mess the US is in when compared to the UK or the rest of Europe to prove the Brits are totally correct here
@@timphillips9954 the UK is a complete mess. The US had years of leftist rule and still has leftist rule. All the blue states are the absolute worst.
No, Milton is right. @@timphillips9954
@@timphillips9954 nah. Look at the state of britain, germany and france!
There's a word you don' t hear anymore. Exports.
Oh you hear it alright, but in the context of us exporting our wealth i.e oil, coal, gas etc to developing nations, rather than using those resources ourselves to export tangible manufactured goods like cars, machinery etc.
Exactly. For years I tried to educate folks that our largest export is money. @@NANOTECHYT
@@NANOTECHYT Who do we export it to? UK energy prices have gone up because we were a net importer of Russian gas. We have no exports because Thatcher dismantled UK industry.
OUTSOURCING YOUR INDUSTRY TO CHEAP CHINESE LABOUR IS FREE MARKET....... Wait a minute.... WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR INDUSTRY? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
@@TrueEnglishMan01 Yep, it's happened all over the Western world. I was speaking more about my native country of Australia, we're exporting everything and importing it then back. I know it sounds dumb, but we've actually had situations where we have Iron Ore in Australia being exported to China and then companies import steel beams from China made with Aussie Iron Ore. Makes no sense! I'm with you man. Every Western country has destroyed our native industry and jobs in our respective countries and exported them overseas. No Australian or British car industry anymore! Same with the USA, Detroit the once great auto city basically decimated. All exported industry to China, Vietnam, India etc. It's all by design to destroy western countries dominance, spread the wealth (essentially socialism) and to make everyone dependent on eachother economically to avoid wars. Problem is now the CCP in China is so dominant in terms of resources and industry that they're rising and the Westerners are too dumb to realise it till it was too late.
Nothing more needs to be said other than look at what happened to Britain’s car industry around the time this debate happened..
Yep, we built more cars once our own car industry was allowed to fail because it was over unionised, inefficient, too expensive and produced a bad product. The designs were innovative but badly manufactured. The Japanese introduced modern deunionised working practices during the late 1980s after which the industry recovered.
@@stumac869 Free market economics hollowed out Britain's industrial Base. What are you talking about?
@@Hiberno_spergIt wasn't free-market economics that killed the whole motorcycle industry, for example. It was the unions. I'm too young to have seen that stuff with my own eyes, but I know people who were there and have explained it to me in detail. It was impossible to get any work done. It wasn't for no reason that Britian went from having literally hundreds of motorcycle manufacturers to having none. I think it has two or three today.
@@stumac869 The unions did not actually cause the collapse they did contribute once the conditions were set. UK auto industry is an example of government planning. The various governments of the uk were exercised such controls that manufactures had to restrict exports due to the governance theories of trade balances.
Yeah, as soon as our cars met competition from abroad it folded. The industry had been moddy coddled and had never had to countenance its position being challenged. In essence, it was surviving on borrowed time. Even today it’s still not getting its sums right and targeting the market correctly. Unions, as Churchill said, are the French letter on the prick of progress. You can demand all the wages you want but a business has to turn a profit for reinvestment and development. UK car industry was over unionised. So, the writing was on the wall
Embarrassing to have set up a four to one pile on,even more embarrassing that they couldn't lay a glove on him.
You obviously didn't listen to what they were saying. You were just waiting for Friedman to speak.
@@Hiberno_spergEngland is a pathetic welfare state and too many people can’t even pay their electric bills.
@@Hiberno_sperg The young fella from cambridge managed to make the same point 4 times in a row and then misunderstand MF's position on worker's rights. The others just name-called, compared him to a pre-A level student, and made disparaging remarks.
@@jpa_fasty3997 yes because Friedman is using Japan as an example of free trade and he's completely incorrect. If he would just address the facts it wouldn't be a problem but he can't. He did a similar thing when talking with a former British Chancellor. He said that if Britain lowered it's tax rates its economy would grow quicker. When the Chancellor pointed out that during the period of discussion Britain's economy grew faster than the US and the US economies fastest period of growth was in the post war, where there was high tax rates and massive state intervention he just hand waved it away. You literally can't get him to address a point. I will add that for such a fan of the free market it strikes me as ironic and hypocritical that Friedman spent his entire career working in universities and in government departments.
@@jpa_fasty3997 Not what happened at all. They all gave valid points. Particularly the guy at 11:18 who made a good point about how Milton was being absolutist on his view on free trade. In reality, it's not really a good idea to have complete free trade nor very protectionist trade, there should be a balance struck between the two. The infant industry argument is a valid one that was actually firstly mentioned by Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the USA. Protecting industry and possibly the gov helping it to develop in the short term until it reaches greater 'economies of scale', and then allowing more free trade and being less protectionist for more competition. This gives the ability of the industry to at least have a chance to compete with established foreign competitors.
Great point around 14:00 by Friedman that poverty was actually worse before the Industrial Revolution (that leftists cite as a terrible period), but people just didn't see it.............there were millions and millions of poor farmers out in the country barely scraping by. And they went to the factories later, because the pay was better.
The industrial revolution along with capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty whilst communism has impoverished millions. Oddly there are still useful idiots that favour the latter over the former.
@@stumac869 It is not the industrial revolution itself or the capitalism or free markets,,, It is the public sector ..
People were subsistence farmers because the economy was feudal. You didn't get paid for work. You were allowed to live on a lord's land on the condition that they received the farm produce. Factory working introduced the idea of paying for people's time rather than the product of work. These people were not well paid at all. The only way that pay began to rise is because workers began to assert for rights. Otherwise they would have just continued to be exploited.
@@TheGinglymusPay rises naturally as labor becomes more productive and firms bid against each other for said labor. Just as competition in the product market prevents firms from setting artificially higher prices on goods, competition in the labor market prevents firms from setting lower wage rates for labor.
@@hanklesacks rising productivity just means that workers are producing more and value that they aren't being paid for. That's why profits increase. If wages increase by the same level as productivity profit would not increase. But the golden rule is you must increase profits, so wages will always lag. Even more so with inflation.
This guy knew his stuff. He should have won the Nobel prize or something!
Won the Noble Prize in 1976. Professor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Illinois, USA, for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.
That doesn't say much for A level economics in Britain.
@@dkelly387z if you look up a bit, you will see the joke flying over your head...
@@paul_k_7351 🤣 I see it...
Milton owned these guys, 4 vs. 1 and it still wasn't even.
His ideas literally wrecked this country
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rpwhat idea? (AIso, I’m a Rothbardian & prefer to go further to point to gvt invImt in the form of the BoE/Fed).
@@G_v._Losinj2_ImportantPlaylist He, like you, support the financial and business class having over-wheening power over society You draw this fake distinction between "the government" and the extremely wealthy interests that they serve. How else have we ended up in a situation where BlackRock has $9 trillion in assets and Amazon has crushed countless small businesses
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp wtf are you even on about, no it didnt.
@@whereschavo3953 We live in a country run in the interests of big business and the City of London Corporation
These British interviewers aren't making any points. They are shouting vague, unrelated theories at Milton.
Made more ironic because the only reason that the industrial revolution started in Britain was that France had too many restrictions.
They are more definitely making points. Especially this guy at 10:04.
@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391 James Watt invented the steam engine, and industry wasn't regulated. You could be rewarded for innovating and working hard instead of punished with taxes and government regulatory nepotism.
@@brentsrx7 Thomas Newcomen efforts shouldn't be underestimated, but that's splitting hairs. A lot of scientific advancement seems to have been stifled in France, and restrictions on technical development, but whether the industrial revolution could have been lead by France is perhaps debatable.
Watching this debate years later. You can see how Britain has declined following these policies. It is closer to Putin's Russia than freedom. The fight now is to get America off that path before it's too late.
Russia is doing 100% better 5th biggest economy in the world no crime ,, the west is a dying empia ,,Milton was right high tax no benefits ,,,
Following Friedman's policies of privatising everything and throwing millions of people on the scrapheap?
It's actually worse than Russia. Look up how many people got arrested in Russia vs UK for posting "inappropriate" speech online. Way more in UK.
Im nut sure which you are reffering to.
What the socialists fail to realize is that extortion or taxation as most people call it, is immoral, so the longer you run your society on that principle the more unprincipled that society becomes.
This is how things used to be. A conversation was had, both put forward their beliefs and examples, viewers/listeners agreed or disagreed and made their own minds up. No flags, protests or blue hair in sight.
Great debate. Loved hearing both sides. Interesting to see how the protectionist arguments have aged over the decades... Friedman's points hold true to this day!
Never trust a person who waves an admonishing index finger when arguing.
Friedman's most interesting quote..."Having open borders is incompatible with the modern Welfare State "
Anyone that argues that the government is any good at anything, needs a reality check.
China
Hey, I didn't get my reality check yet! This isn't fair! I'm calling my congressman!
They're good at wasting money
The only thing governments do well is fuck shit up...
I think you need a reality check. Military Keynesianism for example has been a significant source of innovation. There's also NASA and DARPA. In fact, DARPA invented the internet. It was then grew upon by the private sector. Gov is also very important for infrastructure like the US Highway system by Eisenhower. They also a big funder of R&D like medical research.
There is a good reason why he is always debating a team of people, here or in other places. He has a clear vision of things, while the thick ones have to come up with new arguments, really not understanding what his conception is.
This is very representative of the smug, self assured feelings of British (and Commonwealth) economists in the 70s and 80s. I'm not sure they have changed a bit
The British pound then was worth about $3.50 today $1.26, Japan's Yen has collapsed even further
most likely today's will be ashamed self-loathing masochists like the rest of British academics. How the mighty fell.
A shamelessly xenophobic comment by any metric.
@@VI-rt7sh so sensitive
@@VI-rt7sh Somebody's butthurt. The British have long had a fascination for bad economic ideas.
“You’ve got to have some overall [government] management of the economy.” Famous last words.
Venezuelas government is doing a great job of managing their economy. I think in less than 8 years they’ve destroyed every aspect of their economy, shortages, record inflation, poverty rates of a third world nation, and mass exodus of the population.
This comment would make sense if we didn't have the results from 40 years of implementing Friedman and Hayek's terrible ideas.
Really? Where?@@GarlicOasis
Tell that to the EU who just saw their solar, battery, and (soon to be) car industries completely wiped out by government-backed Chinese competition. There is a reason the US and Europe are slowly abandoning market fundamentalist ideas and pivoting back to a more activist role in the economy.
First, I reject your description of "pivoting." Governments are not pivoting, they have been slowing growing and increasing their involvement in, well, everything, for the almost the last 100 years. It's the growth of the socialist welfare state. But the reason governments are ramping up thei intrusions evern more is because socialism is collapsing under its own weight and governments everwhere are flat broke so they are looking for any excuse to squeeze the people for more money and that requires authoritarian control. That'st the main reaons for the "climate" agenda. It's the reason for CBDCs, etc etc. The EV industy is going through a difficult time right now because EVs don't make any sense as mass-produced road vehicles at the moment. They may get there, but there are other issues beyond the EVs themeselves, like the grid for example. The industry is suffering beause of inherent technological flaws and short-comings that need to be corrected. And just maybe BYD is beating Tesla because they make better cars. Believe me, you don't want governments to have an "activist" role in the economy, because that role comes at the expense of your freedom as a human being. Case in point, Canada. A once good and free country being turned into Venezuela North.@@ulverup
Milton Friedman truly was one of the greats. The world has suffered untold pains due to the faults of Keynesian economic theories. COLLECTIVE SOCIETIES CAN NOT COMPETE WITH THE FREE
Milton smiling while hearing you,... You're done 😂😂
Wow what an argument ..
@@dsgio7254 Wow what a comment
@@ndlh1 ....about your lack of argument.
@@MrJm323 what about your lack of comment?
@@ndlh1 My comment is lacking a comment? ....What?
You can see the hatred and panic in their eyes
History has proved Friedman right.
This is a great discussion. Pity we don't have this now!
Very good. Thanks for uploading. Wish it was longer.
The Great Milton Friedman! 👏🏼
Given what's going on in Britainistan and Swedenistan now due to "government intervention" I'd say Friedman was correct.
Limiting immigration is government intervention. Friedman was for open borders.
@@patrickbateman1660 hordes of 3rd worlders wouldnt be coming if the government wasnt handing out welfare to them like candy. imagine a somali trying to live through the swedish winter without handouts lmao!!!
Probably the least intelligent comment that I've ever come across.
The US is in a far worse position with it's minority populations than any European Country.
Mass migration is a direct consequence of capitalism. The free market requires free movement of labor. Capitalists despise borders, their only motivation is profit.
It looks like these British academics have gotten used to getting paid for producing nothing of societal value, and that entirely taints their world view.
"You haven't even reached A-level economics in this country." "Well, that says something very bad about A-level economics in this country." Damn!
Those Brits doth protest too much.
Friedman one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.
Their argument did not age well as Japan proved in just 10 years from this debate.
Norway, Finalnd Swewden ... etc
@@dsgio7254 Exactly, Finland and Sweden frankly speaking are small GDP nations driven by exports to trade partners that will tolerate large trade imbalances. Norway is an oil exporting nation, so their major product is nationalized and controlled by the government. The etc (say Germany) show the same signs but worse as German, Italian, French trade are drying up.
@@chapagawa How is that related with the public sector ? It is evidence that a big public sector + democratic control = better quality of life for everybody .
@@dsgio7254 at the cost of freedom. no thanks
@@whereschavo3953 What is freedom ? Definition ?
Well I can see why the UK had a 90% tax if these were the best minds.
It was the reason why 1 in 5 British people lived in social housing.
Wow, all of these English chaps are using anecdotes, not a single cold, hard fact. Milton handled them with ease. English liberals--like American ones--excel in seeming substantive and intelligent without actually being so.
This must’ve been the last time anyone on the left actually tried to provide arguments in favor of their position
the funniest thing about this is they keep using Japan as an example but it's now got 255% deficit to gdp and has been like that for 2 decades.
Japan's deficit is - 5% of its GDP. Why are you lying?
@@Hiberno_sperg I don't know what you're quoting... But it's common knowledge that Japan has the worst debt to gdp in the world.
@@Hiberno_sperg are you quoting year on year? From last year (one year) it might have been -5% but total debt is -255%
@@Writeous0ne great and the DR Congo and Afghanistan have some of the best? What's your point? I have more debt than my annual income. Significantly more and homeless man probably has a balanced budget. Thing is, I own 3 houses.
@@Hiberno_sperg it's not my point exactly, it's basic economics. Being in a huge gdp deficit is not a good thing. I'm not sure why you are acting like you are, are you Japanese?
This is important for anyone whoever enters a debate - if there are four people on your side and one on the other - YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE.
This is nonsense. Just because alot of ppl believe something doesn't make it so. Doubtless if we were in the 13th century you'd be assuring me the sun orbited earth. Or the early 20th that aether theory was correct and Einstein was some idiot patent clerk.
Also, the one must be extremely better than most, hence the need for reinforcement!
Friedman serving up knowledge as usual. Is there a full version available?
Hope so as I would like to see the whole thing.
Eric Heffer's legacy speaks for itself. Liverpool under Militant in the eighties was an economic nightmare.
I was astonished to see these Brits even insult Friedman - where were their manners? Especially British manners?
Government does not produce any product except bureaucracies.The primary goal of government is to take from those who produce and give to those who want.
Who'd have thought that a Brooklyn-born Jew would be the calmer, gentlemanlier debater than a selection of Englishmen?
fr lol
At 4'20" the guy mentions Brazil as an example of governments "very effective at fostering the development of modern industry". That is an absolutely ludicrous argument. The interventionist policies in Brazil over decades kept its per capital GDP growth way behind that of Chile. Just because government created something it does not mean it is doing good. In Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt explains this at length.
Precisely. If I steal a $1 from you and buy a candybar, I can wave that candybar in the air and say, 'see! I bought a candybar and I didn't have one before'. But had you kept the $1 you would have bought something else with it and been OVER $1 better off. Instead you are just $1 worse off because I stole from you. That is precisely how government works. It steals your money, buys stuff you DON'T want, then waves it in front of you to show you how great they are!
Brazil was booming from 1950-1988 had another more recent boom from 2002-2010
thanks for posting this.
Utterly love the way that Milton brought the debate back to the main points. Totally worth listening to.
Milton Friedman was a genius and anyone who would argue against his philosophy is wrong!
Well's that is a very ad autoritatem and ad religion argument.
@@jacramir8716 That's true xd. But personally it is also true that in often debates with leftist people (I'm from Argentina), I literally always have the last words because they just can't argue with the principles of freedom by being guided by statism, where its premise is steal money to finance their interests. It may has not visible consecuences on the short term, but in the long road here we are, having to make Argentina great again.
Nah, he's kind naive in some aspects. He argued for an open boarder with palestine.
@lloydgush In some areas, but he was definitely a true capitalist. Smart guy, I enjoy the debates.
The fact they had Eric Heffer on the panel says everything you need to know. It helps explain the depths to which we had sunk as a country in the 70's.
It ultimately comes down to a complete lack of knowledge of trust in the judgement of the common man, and the knowledge that powerful men can be trusted to be corrupt.
If this Limey's argument is that it is a good thing that every Japanese company was founded and historically subsidized by the Japanese government, then what is his prescription for British industry? That the British parliament should renew the royal charter of the East India Trading Company that operated at a loss to the British public for several decades?
The Japanese companies produced far more than was ever invested in them instead of subsidised and losing money like so many western companies and industries. The brits are confusing investment to get going with constant life support as they are not the superior product and have to be protected from the real world. Just like they do with anyone who studied the humanities in uni haha
Out of those 5 people there was only one Nobel Prize winner.
Thank you for sharing this. Great debate and regarding today's standards, it is a pretty decent one.
It's funny to listen to Bob Rowthorn's description of the Japanese government's control of domestic industry. At the time this interview was conducted, Japan's government-run enterprises were already insolvent. Japan Rail, Japan Agriculture, Japan Tobacco, Japan Racing, Japan Petroleum, Japan Post, all of these were privatized. These industries were privatized because under government control they lost vast amounts of money, while the quality of goods and services declined. Post-privatization, all became profitable, and rather than being black holes for taxpayer money, they began earning profits and adding tax revenue to government coffers. Japan's protection of it's domestic industries came back to bite Japan on the backside in the collapse of the "Bubble Economy" in the early 90's. The government's support of those industries is still felt to this day, with both the industries and the government itself still struggling to repay the losses. In regard to the influence of unions, this never occurred in Japan. To this day unions have never been a social or political power in Japan, and, contrary to what many would expect, the result is Japan has the world's largest middle class. The lack of unions in the public sector (government) has been especially beneficial, as it has led to far better and more efficient public services than those enjoyed in America or Europe, at a lower cost to the taxpayers.
For anybody interested - Toyota started as a textile company with high quality manufacturing machines. When the japanese textile market colapsed they made a switch to a car industry. We all know what happened next. The source is wiki for japanese automotive history
All the fancy machines that Toyota used post WW2 were US industry based. Same for Germany.
@@Art-is-craft lol were did you get that? Japanese industrialization started in 20s. Same for Germany. Your argument is just funny especially because you mentioned Germany whose industrial development was enough to support full out tech war against all major nations in Europe + soviets. They had more than enough base for industrial development post ww2. Same holds for Japan who anexed Korea, raged through China and attacked pearl harbor. And for your knowledge Toyota started producing cars in 1936. Stop that nonsense
@@rocklobstah2712 I get it from things like transistors and hundreds of billions of industrial funding post WW2. Japanese electronics industry is a post WW2 development.
@@Art-is-craft Toyota doesn't even produce transistors. To add to that the original video was about the colapse of japanese textile industry due to free market. US did invest in Japan around 20bln$ adjusted for inflation (not hundreds lol), which is not that much on the scale of modern economies. But that investment was because US didn't want for soviets to have grasp on Japan. This investment took place from 1946 to 1952 which is far before Japanese electronics took over the world.
The venom these 4 had for a different view dominates over their own. It is hard to listen to them. Even if you agreed with the men and their views when the debate began you would think very little of them when it ended, and far more of the person you began the day disagreeing with. They did an exceptionally poor job of representing their school, themselves, and views.
Can you post the whole video?
The term intellectual connotes a certain contempt among the public but Friedman elevates it and not only demolishes the lesser intellectuals but more importantly raises the intelligence of the thoughtful common man. A bit like the famous judge Lord Denning. Moreover, he seems humble and his marvellous smile is merited.
Friedman failed to stress a vital point he made during this encounter: every governmental intervention, as every action by an economic agent, causes a chain of events, the last events of which are not as visible as the first. The Four gentleman seem to believe that an increase of tariffs leads to greater employment overall because they *just* see the immediate effects of such policy. But such action starts a chain of events whose effects are not as visible as the increase of employment in the newly protected industries: employment decreases in the sectors that rely heavily on imported intermediate goods, real income decreases overall (but again, real income increases in the protected and visible sectors). There is a lack of understanding of this key economic notion on the part of them. The first layer of an onion is the most visible one, but that does not mean it is the only one: there are more layers to be seen.
Well said. And unfortunately, the less visible, widely distributed harms are almost always worse than the highly visible, narrowly concentrated gains. A classic leftist policy is to take $1 each from 100 million people to give $50 million to a special interest. The special interest is highly motivated to receive this handout and votes accordingly, but the general public is not nearly as motivated (or even aware) to fight the $1 harm they're receiving... And yet at large, society is worse off by the $50 million. You really only start to notice the impact when you compare low government spending, high GDP growth countries against high government spending, low GDP growth countries and see where they stand after a few decades. Compounded over time, doing anything but leaving the market free to maximize GDP growth makes you worse off by orders of magnitude. Every other strategy gets outpaced by a large exponent on the exponential growth.
It's ironic that the ones calling Friedman religious or calling his ideas nonsense make very few concrete logical arguments. They just keep referring to places where 1) good things happened and 2) gov't did things. They simply assume as an axiom that gov't action is good. Well, if me and my friends rob a bank, is that good? Now what if me and my friends start a union to get the gov't to force other people to pay us more or to prevent some people from competing against me? Is that good? These people seem to think that as long as something is done via gov't, it must be good. If some people want something, it must be that "the people" want it. No, *some* people wanted it. And a free market allows all individuals to make their own choices. Some people want shorter work days or more holidays, but others might prefer to work more and earn more - why not let individuals decide? The simple fact that some places - Hong Kong, Japan, the US, Singapore, Switzerland - have had huge advances in prosperity while having very limited gov't, is enough to prove that gov't is often redundant at best. And at worst, as Friedman claims, it leaves countries worse off. These people don't actually compare things. The gov't is everywhere and they attribute all progress to gov't - it's circular logic.
The frustration of the 4 British might have felt while elaborating their points of view and watching Friedmans smile only getting wider as if he will tear all the argument down with only one quick short question…
Friedman’s opponents here are also insulting, condescending, & resort to ad hominem attacks while he remains cheerful, polite, & argues the principles. I’m for allowing people their own ideas, good or bad, but not subsidizing them.
"Four old children go back to school."
Do you know where we can find the full exchange? This is really good stuff!
In the exchanges shown in this video, Friedman generally list to the young guy from Cambridge. He never properly rebutted his arguments. More importantly, he ignores national security. If a country outsources essential goods (like food, energy, military supplies, etc., it exists only at the sufferance of foreign powers. Also, a country might not be as efficient at producing a certain good at the current moment, but tariffs, legislation, etc. might give locals the ability to catch up, then surpass foreign competition.
Imagine if we got Friedman, Mises and Rothbard to debate against the 4 on this video?
Can we include Thomas Sowell as well? I like the sound of his voice.
Friedman had it covered, tbf
Yeah they would still be completely wrong.
@@Hiberno_sperg Greetings, time traveler! You may want to pick up a history book, because in this timeline the predictions of these four have proven to be accurate. For example, you might want to read the other comments here to see what the Brazilians have to say about how things have turned out in their country. Good luck, and I hope you find your way back to your original universe! Edit- Oh, my mistake, you must have meant that the 4 Brits in this video had it completely wrong, regardless of which free-market economist brought in? Yes, sorry, they would still be completely wrong.
@@clairecelestin8437 Friedman is basically a disciple of Hayek and Sowell is basically a disciple of Friedman
Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell are on my personal Mount Rushmore.
I guess it's no wonder you don't hear these other guys names very much.
All in all, wonderful to hear such a polite discussion. Why is it that those who are most rude complain more about being interrupted?
It's incredible how even in the middle of a huge crisis of keynesianism in all the western world they would still argue that it was the best option.
If many of you Brits are wondering what happened to your nation.......here's why. These guys.
It's funny that guy brings up Japan as an example of government intervention working, because in that period Japan had industries that were stagnant and others that were taking over the world, the latter industries had very little government incentives or intervention, primarily electronics, autos and motorcycles, and photographic equipment. The ones the government sheltered were not for most part competitive internationally.
There is another factor as well that is very misunderstood. Japans technological post WW2 economy was sponsored by the US. All those fancy electronics were based on US industrial capabilities.