Milton Friedman - Is Capitalism Humane? (Lecture)

it is my very great pleasure to present to you our speaker today professor Milton freak what I want to talk about is really an issue which is very much related to the whole problem of human freedom it has to do with the question of whether capitalism is humane and what you mean by I am sure many of you have heard the funny of the old story about the two poles who met one another and one pole said to the other tell me do you know the difference between capitalism and socialism and the other pole said no I don't know the difference and the first pole said well you know under capitalism man exploits man the other fellow shook his head well under socialism he said it's vice-versa well now that as a matter of fact in the present intellectual atmosphere of the world is a relatively favorable evaluation of capitalism the interesting thing to me about this is that the all of the arguments the issues in this debate which has been going on for so long about the form of government have changed the argument used to be about strictly the form of economic organization should we have government control of production and distribution or should we have a market control and the argument used to be made in terms of the supposedly greater efficiency of centralized government and have centralized control nobody makes that argument anymore there is hardly a person in the world who will claim the nationalized industries or socialism as a method of economic organization is an efficient way to organize things the examples of Great Britain the examples of Russia the examples of some of the other states around the world that have adopted these measures plus the domestic grown examples of the post office in its fellows have put an end to that kind of talk but the interesting thing is that nonetheless there is widespread opposition for cat to capitalism as a system of organization and there is widespread sewer support for some vague system labeled socialism the most dramatic example of the change in the character the argument and the paradox that I'm really bringing out is Germany here was Germany which experienced all the horrors of the Nazi totalitarian state in the 1930s here is Germany which after the war under the Erhard policy of socio marked fear shaft social market economy had an economic miracle with an enormous rise in total income enormous rise in the well-being of the German people of the ordinary people and yet in German despite the demonstration of the horrors on the one side of a totalitarian state and on the other of the benefits of a relatively free market here in Germany you will find a very large fraction of all intellectuals remain and not only remain have become even more strongly anti-capitalist have become proponents of collectivism of one form or another only a small number have gone into the more extreme versions that you've been reading about in the paper of the of the terrorists but a very large fraction of the intellectuals those who write for the newspapers those who are on television and so on are fundamentally anti-capitalist in their mentality and the question is why what is it that has produced this shift now one of the most enough is shift what is it that produces this consistent attitude of anti capitalism on the one hand and pro something called collectivism on the other among intellectuals one of the most interesting analyses of these problems I know is by a Russian dissident mathematician named Schaffer ravitch his essay which has never been published needless to say in Russia but it appears in English translation in a book called under the rubble which has been edited by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and I strongly recommend that particular paper to you in it he discusses the appeal of socialism over the ages he goes back a thousand or two thousand years and he comes out with the conclusion that just as Freud pointed to the death wish in individuals as a fundamental psychological propensity the appeal of capitalism he argued I'm sorry the appeal of socialism the opposition to capitalism is really a fundamental sign of a death wish for society on the part of intellectuals it's a very intriguing strange and at first sight highly improbable kind of an interpretation yet I urge you all to read that essay because you will find that it is very disturbing by having a great deal more sense to it than you would suppose such a position could possibly have I'm not going to take that line maybe he's right but I think there's a very much simpler analysis a simpler reason for this and that simpler reason is a combination of a supposed emphasis on moral values and ignorance and misunderstanding about the relationship between moral values and economic systems I may say the emphasis on moral values is almost always on the part of people who do not have economic problems it's not on the part of the masses but the problem with this approach the problem of trying to interpret and analyze a system either pro or con in terms of such concepts as a morality of the system or the humanity of the system whether capitalism is humane or socialism is humane or moral or immoral the problem with that is in moral values are individual they are not collective moral values have to do with what each of us separately believes in holds true what our own individual values are capitalism socialism central planning our means not ends they in and of themselves they need a more alluring world humane or humility in human we have to ask what are their results we have to look at what are the consequences of adopting one or another system of organization and from that point of view the crucial thing is to look beneath the surface don't look at what the proponents of one system or another say are their intentions but look at what the actual results are socialism which means government ownership and operation of means of production has appealed to high-minded fine people to people of idealistic views because of the supposed objectives of socialism especially because of the supposed objectives and equality of equality and social justice now those are fine objectives and it's a tribute to the people of good will that those objectives should appeal to them but you have to ask the question does a system no matter what its proponents say produce those results and once you look at the results it's crystal clear that they do not wear our social injustice is greatest social injustice Azhar clearly greatest where you have central control the degree of social injustice and torture in a place like in incarceration in a place like Russia is of a different order of magnitude than it is in those Western countries where most of us have grown up and in which we have been accustomed to regarding freedom as our natural heritage social injustice in a country like Yugoslavia which is a much more benign communist state than Russia and yet you asked Jesus who languishes in prison for having written a book you asked the people at the University of Belgrade who have been sent to prison or many others who have been ejected from the country social injustice in China where you have had thousands of people murdered because of their opposition to the government again you look at the question of inequality of equality where do you have the greatest degree of inequality in the socialist states of the world I remember about 15 years ago my wife and I were in Russia for a couple of weeks we were in Moscow and we were we were going with our interest died and happened to see I happen to see some of the fancy Russian limousines up there the Zips they were sort of a take-off on the 1938 American Packers and I asked our interest guide out of amusement how much did those sell for all she said those aren't for sale those are only for the members of the Politburo you have in a country like Soviet Union enormous inequality in the immediate literal sense that there is a small select group that has all of the services and amenities of life and very large masses that are in a very very low standard of living indeed in a more direct way if you take the wage rate of foremen versus the wage rate of ordinary workers in the Soviet Union the ratio is much greater than it is in the United States I am reminded again of another if I seem somehow to be referring to Poland but on this same trip that we took to Russia we stopped in Poland in Warsaw for a while and we met there a marvelous man a man by the name of Edward Lipinski who was in this country a year ago at the age of eighty three or four I believe was arrested when he got back to Poland because he had been one of those who had signed an author to Declaration against the suppression of freedom of thought and speech in Poland but at the time we met Edward Lipinski he would seem to be fairly afraid he is a militant man who had been a socialist all his life and this was really very hard for he was now in his 70s I may say when we saw him he was retired very hard thing for a man to go back on all of his lifelong beliefs and so he said as follows to us he said you know he said I used to believe in socialism I still do but socialism is an ideal we can't have it in the real world he said until we're rich enough to be able to afford it and he said socialism will be practical when every man in Poland has a house and two servants and I said to him including the servants and he said yes now capitalism on the other hand is a system of organization that relies on private property and voluntary exchange it has repelled people it's driven them away from supporting it because they have thought it emphasized self-interest in a narrow way because they were repelled by the idea of people pursuing their own interests rather than some broader interest yet if you look at the results it's clear that the results go the other way around there isn't it's in the capitalist societies of the world where only where capitalism has prevailed over long periods if you had both freedom and prosperity the greatest measures of freedom if you look at the Western countries where freedom prevails it doesn't prevail perfectly we all have our defects but by an eye on buying on the large few would deny that in the United States in Great Britain and France in Germany in the Western Europe we have a greater degree of freedom on an individual and personal level than you do in most other places around the world in Australia Japan to a considerable extent today though not two hundred years ago if you look you will find that freedom has prevailed where you've had capitalism and that simultaneously so has a well-being and the prosperity of the ordinary man there's been more social justice and less inequality now the question is that you have to ask and you have to ask the proponents of these two system has socialism failed because it's good qualities were perverted by evil men who got in charge was it simply because Stalin took over from Lanen that communism went the way it did has capitalism succeeded despite the immoral values that pervade it I think the answer to both questions is in the negative the results have arisen because each system has been true to its own values or rather a system doesn't have values I don't mean that has been true to the values it encourages supports and develops in the people who live under that system what we're concerned with in discussing moral values here are those that have to do with the relations between people it's important to distinguish between two sets of moral considerations the morality that is relevant to each of us in our private life how we each individually conduct ourselves behave and then what's relevant to systems of government and organization are the relations between people and in judging relations among between people I do not believe that the fundamental value is to do good to others whether they want you to or not the fundamental value is not to do good to others as you see their good it's not to force them to do good as I see it the fundamental value in relations to Hmong people is to respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow men to treat your fellow man not as an object to be manipulated for your purpose but the treat him as a person with his own values in his own rights a person to be persuaded not coerced not forced not bulldozed not brainwashed that seems to me to be a fundamental value from in social relations in all systems whether you call them socialism capitalism or anything else people act from self-interest the citizens of Russia act from self-interest in the same way as the citizens in the United States do the difference between the two countries is in what determines self-interest the man in the United States who is serving as a foreman in a factory his self-interest leads him to worry about not getting fired the man in Russia who is acting as Foreman in a factory his self-interest leads him to worry about not being fired at both are pursuing their own self-interest but the sanctions the effects what makes it in their self-interest is different in the one case and in the other but self-interest should not be interpreted as narrow selfishness I quote a man who speaks much more eloquently than I can this is Thoreau and I quote him from Walden here's what though the Thoreau said about unselfishness as a moral virtue he said there is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted it if I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good I should run for my life philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind nay it is greatly overrated and it as to our it is our selfishness which over rates it if anything L a man so that he does not perform his functions if he have a pain in his bowels even for that as a seat of sympathy he forthwith sets about reforming the world being a microcosm himself he discovers and it is a true discovery and he is the man to make it that the world has been eating green apples to his eyes in fact the globe itself is a great green apple which there is danger awful to think of that the children of men will nibble before it is ripe and straight away his drastic philanthropy seeks out the Eskimo and the Patagonian and embraces the populous Indian and Chinese villages that's the row on unselfishness as a moral value more important and more fundamentally whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions you realize this is highly relevant to what I'm saying because the essential notion of a capitalist society which I'll come back to is voluntary cooperation voluntary exchange the essential notion of a socialist society is fundamentally force if the government is the master if society is to be run from the central center what do you do what are you doing you automatically have to order people what to do what is your ultimate sanction go back a ways take it on a milder level whenever you try to do good with somebody else's money you are committed to using force how can you do good with somebody else's money unless you first take it away from them the only way you can take it away from them is by the threat of force you have a policeman a tax collector who comes and takes it from them this is carrying much farther if you really have a socialist society if you have an organization from the centre if you have supposed government bureaucrats running things that can only ultimately rest on force but whenever you resort to force even to try to do good you must not questions people's motives maybe they're evil sometime but look at the results of what they do give them the benefit of the doubt assume their motives are good you know there's an old saying about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions you have to look at the LT and whenever you use force the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions the reason is not only that famous aphorism of Lord Acton you all know it you've all heard absolute power corrupts absolutely I'm sorry power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely that's a whole aphorism that's one reason why trying to do good with methods that involve force lead to bad results because of people who set out with good intentions are themselves corrupted and I may add if they're not corrupted they're replaced by people with bad intentions who are more efficient at getting control of the use of force but also the fundamental reason is more profound the most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their instincts of their and of the purity of their intentions that Thoreau says that philanthropy is a much overrated virtue sincerity is also a much overrated virtue heaven preserve us from the sincere reformer who knows what's good for you and bye-bye heaven is going to make you do it whether you like it or not that's when you get the greatest harm done I have no reason to doubt that Lenin was a man whose intentions were good maybe they weren't but he was completely persuaded that he was right and he was willing to use any methods at all for the ultimate good again it's interesting to contrast the experience of Hitler versus Mussolini Mussolini was much less of a danger to human right because he was a hypocrite because he didn't really believe what he was saying he was just in there for the game he started out as a socialist he turned to a fascist he was willing to be bribed by whoever would bribe him the most as a result there were at least some protections against his arbitrary rule but Hitler was a sincere fanatic he believed in what he was doing and he did far greater harm or if I may take you on to a minor key in which you may not join me I realize Ralph Nader is a modern example of the same thing I have no doubt that Ralph is sincere I have no doubt that he means what he says but that's why he's so dangerous a man who is threatening our freedom in the past in the past few decades in the past few decades there has been a great decline in the moral climate there are a few people who doubt the decline in the moral climate we see evidences of it here the lack of civility and discussions among people the resort to chance instead of arguments these are all evidences on one level of a decline in moral climate but we see it also in the rising crime statistics in the lack of respect for property in the kind of rioting that broke out in New York after the blackout in the problems of maintaining discipline in elementary schools why why have we had such a decline in moral climate I submit to you that a major factor has because it been because of a change in the philosophies which had been prominent in society from a belief in individual responsibility to a supposed belief in social responsibility from a tendency to get away from the individual from his responsibility for his own life in his own behavior if he doesn't behave properly that's his responsibility needs to be charged connected to a belief that after all it's society that is responsible if you adopt the view that everything belongs to society then it belongs to nobody why should I have any respect for property if it belongs to everybody if you adopt the view that no man is responsible for his own behavior because somehow or other society is responsible well then why should he seek to make his behavior good now of course don't misunderstand me on a scientific level it's true that what we are is affected a great deal by the society in which we live and grow up of course all of us are different than we would have been if we had grown up in a different society so it's not denying in the slightest the effect on all of us of the social institutions within which we operate both on our values and our opportunity on our opportunities but I am only saying that a set of social institutions which stresses individual responsibility which stresses a responsibility for the of the individual given the kind of person he is the kind of society in which he operates to be responsible for himself is a kind of a society which is likely to have a much higher and more responsible moral climate than the kind of a society in which you stress the lack of responsibilities the individual for what happens to him let me note the schizophrenia in the talk about social responsibility there's always a tendency to excuse the people who are harmed by what happens or the people who are regarded as a victims there's always a tendency to excuse them from any responsibility they didn't riot in Harlem because they had no control over their emotions because they were bad people or because they were irresponsible people no they rioted because of what society did to him that's the argument but nobody ever turns it around and argues the other way if the people who rioted our innocent of guilt because society who did it to it then aren't the people who are singled out as the oppressors also free of guilt do you hear these scenes saying people say oh no we mustn't blame those bad people who trampled the poor under their feet because they're not doing it out of their own individual will society is making them forcing them to do it if you're going to use the doctrine of social responsibility you ought to be even-handed both ways it excuses both the victim and the person who is responsible because that would be inconsistent in the person who is alleged to be responsible for the victimization and similarly you must be even-handed on the signs we must all of us be individually responsible for what we do to our fellow man whether that be harm or good there's an additional reason why you've had a decline in the moral climate you'll pardon me for returning to my my discipline of economics but there's a fundamental economic law which has never been contradicted to the best of my knowledge and that is if you paste more for something there will tend to be more of that something available if the amount you're willing to pay for anything goes up somehow or other somebody will supply more of that thing we have made immoral behavior far more profitable we have in the course of the changes in our society been establishing greater and greater incentives on people to behave in ways that most of us regard as immoral on each of us separately we've all been doing it one of the examples that has always appealed to me along these lines is the example of Great Britain not now but in the 19th century and 18th century you know in the 18th century Britain was regarded as a nation of smugglers of law of avoiders of people who broke the law in the 19th and early 20th century Britain got the reputation for being the most a law beating country in the world an incorruptible civil service everybody knew about the fact that you couldn't bribe a civil servant in Britain away you could want to say Italy or New York how did that come about how did a nation of smugglers with no respect for the law get converted into a nation of people obedience of the law very simply by Allah by the less a fair policy adopted in the 19th century which eliminated laws to break if you had complete free trade if you had complete free trade as you did after the abolition of the Corn Laws there was no more smuggling it was a meaningless term you were free to bring anything into the country you wanted you couldn't be a smuggler who's impossible if you didn't need a license to establish a business you didn't need a license to open up a factory what was there to bribe a civil servant for the civil servants became incorruptible because there was nothing to bribe them for now of course these patterns there's a cultural lag as you have all learned in your anthropology courses and these patterns once they develop lasts for a while but what has been happening in Britain in the last 30 and 40 years as Britain has been moving away from essentially let's say fair and toward a much more controlled and centralized economy this reputation for law obedience is disappearing you've had repeated scandals about ministers of the government about members of parliament about civil servants who have been brought about the rise in gang warfare and the rest why because you're establishing an incentive you've got more laws to break now it's much more fundamental when the only laws are those laws which everybody regards is right and valence they have great moral force when you make laws that people separately do not regard as right invalid they lose their moral force is there anybody in here who has a moral compunction to speeding I'm not saying you may not have a Prudential objection to speeding you may be afraid you'll get caught but does it seem to you Lee immoral to speed maybe if so you're a small minority I have never yet found anybody who regarded it immoral as immoral to violate the foreign exchange regulations of a foreign country here are people who would never dream for a moment of stealing a nickel from their neighbor who have no hesitancy on manipulating their income tax returns so as to reduce their taxes by thousands why because the one set of laws have a moral value that people recognize independent of the law of the government having passed these laws the other cent do not appeal to people's moral instincts so I believe well let me give you some more examples from the United States prohibition of liquor which was attempted as you know had disastrous effects on the climate of law obedience and more relevant something which had been legal to buy and drink some alcoholic beverages became illegal and you converted law-abiding citizens into bootleggers I heard over the 60 minutes on the program last Sunday night a great story on butt legging this has to do with the fact that the New York state tax on cigarettes is very much higher than the tax on cigarettes in the state of South Carolina so you have people going down to South Carolina and buying the South Carolina low taxed cigarettes and smuggling it into New York State and forging New York state tax stamps on it and then selling it to publicly a large fraction of all cigarettes sold in New York State are but light now there you've provided an incentive for people to break the law so they break the law it's like prohibition in a different form the obvious answer is for New York State to lower its taxes and you will eliminate but legging overnight and them and be able to take whatever may be the number of policemen who are devoted to enforcing that kind of thing you will be able to take them and turn them to useful work I go back however to the essence of capitalism and its relevance to the question of humanity as I say the essence of a capitalist system in its pure form is that it is a system of cooperation without compulsion a voluntary exchange of free enterprise now I hasten to add no actual system conforms to that notion in the actual world you're always dealing with approximations with more or less in the actual world you always have impediments and interferences to voluntary exchange but the essential character of a capitalist system is that it relies on voluntary exchange on you're agreeing with me that you will buy something from me if I will pay you a certain amount for it the essential notion is that both parties to the exchange must benefit this was a great vision of Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations that individuals each separately pursuing their own self-interest could promote the social interest because you could get exchanged between people on the basis of mutual benefit now I want to emphasize to you here for this purpose that this notion extends far beyond economic matters narrowly conceived that's really the main point I want to get across here and I want to give you some very different kinds of examples consider the development of language the English language there was never any central government that dictated the English language that set up some rules for it there was no Planning Board that determined what word should be nouns in what words vowels and I mean what words adjectives language grew through the free market through voluntary cooperation I used a word you used a word if was mutually advantageous to us to keep on using that word we keep on using language grows it develops it expands it contracts through the free market consider the body of common law not legislative law which is a very different thing but the body of common law people voluntarily chose to go to a court and allow the court to adjudicate their dispute in the process there arose and developed the body of common law again no central plan no central coordination you are here in an academic institution how did scientific knowledge and understanding arise how do we get the development of science is there somehow or other a government agency that decides what are the most important problems to be studied that prevents cooperation unfortunately there are developing such agencies but in the history of science that isn't the way science developed science developed out of free-market exchange it developed on occasion with a patronage of an authority but voluntary cooperation among the scientists I read voluntarily the work that is done by economists and other lands they read my work they take the parts of it they like they discard the parts they don't in the process you build a more and more complicated system through voluntary free voluntary exchange based on the principle of mutual benefit similarly to a free market and ideas again that is a free market of exactly the same kind as the economic market and no Durman and the two are very closely interrelated is it a violation of the free market in goods or the free market in ideas if a country as Great Britain did immediately after the war has exchanged control under which no citizen of Britain may buy a foreign book unless he got authorization from the Bank of England to acquire the foreign currency is that any restriction on human and economic freedom or is it a restriction on ideas on the free market and ideas I want to give you a final example which goes back to the fundamental question we've been raising and that's voluntary charitable activity I want you to ask you a question go back to the 19th century in the United States it was a period when you had about the closest approximation to a capitalist society you can imagine in which the federal government who is spending roughly an amount equal to roughly 3 percent of the national income almost entirely on the Army and Navy state and local governments were spending about 6 or 7 percent of the national income mostly on schooling very little of what has come to be regarded as welfare activities yet the 19th century was a period of the greatest burst of voluntary charitable activity that we have seen in this country or any other country at any other time when was Cornell established how it was established by the voluntary benefaction of the man who gave you your name sometime what was it 1860 something that period of the 19th century saw the emergence of a host of private colleges universities throughout the country my own University of Chicago was established in 1890 and voluntary by voluntary eleemosynary activity it was also the period which saw the growth and development of the nonprofit charitable Hospital it saw the establishment of foreign missions of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of the Boy Scouts you name it there is hardly a voluntary activity Carnegie libraries the free public libraries why was it that voluntary activity flourished because again the free market voluntary cooperation among people cooperating to pursue their common interests is a far more effective and efficient way of producing charitable results than any other known to man I ask you what is a common element in all of these cases I've mentioned language common law scientific knowledge ideas charitable activity the development of an elaborate and complex structure without any central planning and without coercion no central planning and language common law and scientific knowledge and I did in voluntary activity and yet you develop complex mechanisms complex structures with order with structures which after the event you can analyze in logical terms without coercion you have progress through harmony rather than the attempt to impose progress through course capitalism is often reproached as being materialistic it's often repro she's erecting money as the chief motives but yet again look at the facts I may say you know money is not a very noble motive but it's cleaner than most but look at the facts who has produced the great achievements of mankind can you name me a great play that has been written by a government committee can you name me an invention that was produced by a government Bureau the great works that are the great achievements of mankind of all been the achievements of individuals of a Shakespeare or a George Bernard Shaw George Bernard Shaw is a beautiful example because of course as you know he wrote the book the famous book the Intelligent Woman's Guide to socialism he regarded himself as a socialist but his career and his performance is a striking demonstration of the virtues of a capitalist system he opposed again in science it's Einstein Copernicus Galileo who are the great contributors of scientific ideas not through government central organization but mostly in spite of it in Galileo's cases you know despite persecution by the centralized authorities of his time again in the areas of charity Florence Nightingale was not a government civil servant she was a private individual human being who was seeking to achieve the objective she held dear she was pursuing her self-interest the plain fact is that in any society whatever may be its form of organization the people who are not interested in material values are a small minority there are no societies in the world today that are more materialistic than the collectivist societies it's the Russian societies it's the Chinese societies it's the Yugoslavs ayahs that put all their stress on materialism on achieving economic goals and five-year plans that destroy the non-materialistic achievements of mankind why because they are in a possession of position to suppress minorities what we want for a society that is at once humane and gives opportunity for great human achievements is in a society in which that small minority a minority of people who do not have materialistic objectives who are interested in some of these other achievements have the greatest degree of freedom and the only society that anybody has ever invented than anybody has ever discovered that comes close to doing that is a capitalist society when you hear people objecting to the market or to capitalist and you examine their objections you will find that most of those objections are objections to freedom itself what most people are objecting to is that the market gives people what the people want instead of what the person talking thinks the people oughta want this is true whether you are talking of the objections of a Galbraith to the market whether you are talking of the objections of a Nader to the market whether you were talking of the objections of a Marx or an angles or a Lenin to the market the problem is that in a market society in a society in which people are free to do their own thing in which people make voluntary deals it's hard to do good you've got to persuade people and there's nothing in this world harder but the important thing is that in that kind of society it's also hard to do harm it's true that if you had a concentrated power in the hands of an angel he might be able to do a lot of good as he viewed it but one man's good is another man's then and the great virtue of a market capitalist society is that it be by preventing a concentration of power it prevents people from doing the kind of harm which really concentrated power can do so that I conclude that capitalism per se is not humane or inhumane socialism per se is not humane or anyway but capitalism tends to give the give free rein much free rein to the more humane values of human beings it tends to develop a climate which is more favorable to the development on the one hand of a higher moral atmosphere of responsibility and on the other to greater achievements in every realm of human understanding thank

  1. The redistributionist or "equality warrior" reasons their system as moral by the goals it aims to achieve. The rational thinker looks at the means that are required to achieve their goals and judges them accordingly.

  2. My CAT Decided What I ATE for 24 HOURS (And This Is What Happended…)

  3. To extend Milton Friedman's logic to software development. The Linux OS was developed by freely cooperating developers around the world who stood to mutually benefit from the open source OS. This style of development was in stark contrast to how MAC OS X or Windows OS developed, these OS developed in a more central style -Companies like Microsoft/Apple overseeing its development inside closed doors etc.
    If we look at the OS user base today, Linux leads by a huge margin, in the overall OS user base (I am not talking only about the desktop OS market). Today after hearing Mr. Friedman it all seems to add up.

  4. The argument he makes is strictly economic, and fully disregards both the environmentalist policy that must be centralized to be effective, as well as the efficacy of any punitive measures outside of the market on those that act unethically.

  5. I can see in the audience that each person reacts to Dr. Friedman in a different way, this is evidence of his statement that morals are individual. To some, it does not matter what he says, their ideas will not be changed for the better no matter what intelligent reason he uses.

  6. I love friedman but the entire space program came from government fiat, the internet, the atom bomb, much of medicines and science. There are a lot of inventions which came from military or space program, so hes absurdly wrong on that point

  7. What if governments itself engages in the market efficiently to generate money through public sector enterprises?

  8. 26:00 on is really good. 30:00 or so on is brilliant. And I can only see the "Anth bobo"'s comment below me in order to try to adjudge the thoughts of people, but Anth is right, in my opinion. Friedman would not be welcome (we call it ostracized, the left calls it the common good for mankind…lol)… funny.

  9. 11:54
    Even the servants would have a house and their own servants?
    That actually sounds like capitalism if you really think about it.

  10. Laws in centralized Britain multiply causing more MPs to be charged with corruption. Does he mean that corruption should be legalized.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *