[cardguy]

The Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman was my favourite person of the twentieth century.

He had the raw type of combative intelligence which I really admire in people. He could express his thinking in the clearest and wittiest of terms. Those who knew him said it was impossible to beat him in an argument. I have never seen somebody who can demolish an argument so well - and build up to the final killer line. I marvel at the speed his brain worked.

Anyway - I am mentioning him here because there are alot of brilliant clips featuring him which were broadcast in the 70's and 80's. And I thought it would be fun to share a few of them here.

I will just a mention a few now - and then add others to the thread at later points.

1) THE PENCIL

Who knew the whole world of free market economics could be demonstrated clearly by just considering a humble pencil. This is my favourite parable from economics - and (been the nerd that I am) I plan to memorize it one day.

After watching this clip - you will never look at a pencil the same way again.

2) THE CASINO

Here is Milton Friedman in a casino. His talk clarifies the key difference between communism and capitalism. And his discussion of risk is one that I have not come across before.

3) UTOPIA

Classic Firedman here. He elegantly skewers the idealism and utopianism which lies behind many of the critiques of free market capitalism.

4) MARXISM

Friedman debates a Marxist lawyer. This is an excellent example of how Friedman builds his arguments to end on a final killer line.

5) THE PRICE OF A LIFE

Milton Friedman debates a left-wing student on exactly how we should or should not put a price on a life. It is great seeing Friedman wriggle out of the trap laid for him.

[Ardbeg]

He is also my intellectual idol. And I think it's fair to say he is the intellectual who has had the biggest impact on U.S. policy in the past 40 hours. Things like the end of the draft, school choice, deregulation of the airline and other industries, and the earned income credit can all be traced back to him. I randomly ran across the Free to Choose series two/three years ago on Youtube and sent much of one weekend just watching those clips over and over again. The CATO Institute has a biannual Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty that I've gone to twice.

[cardguy]

For those who haven't seen 'Free To Choose' - here is Arnold Schwarzenegger giving a personal introduction to his all-time favourite TV series.

[cardguy]

I always thought it was pretty bad ass that Friedman managed to attract protestors who interupted the awarding of his Noble prize for Economics.

If you are not at least pissing some people off - you are not trying hard enough.

[cardguy]

Milton Friedman explaining to a woman why having more millionaires is not a problem.

It is wonderful - it is like watching a bear maul a poodle.

[SheriffBart]

This is the ultimate Friedman video.

Cracking wise. Check.
Defeating feminists with logic. Check.
Shit eating grin. Check.
Members of the white patriarchy sitting in the audience guffawing at dumb broads. Check.

[vinman]

I am a huge fan of Friedman. I found him years ago by accident on YouTube. I gobbled up as much info on him as I could. It was also a pleasant surprise to find out that he was a friend and mentor to another economists that I like, Dr. Thomas Sowell. CardGuy is on fire today.

[cardguy]

Yeah - I found him by accident on YouTube as well. And was blown away by his clear debating style. I have never seen anyone like that. It reminds me of Richard Feynman and the way he could break down physics into the simplest and most easy to understand concepts.

He has such a great style and personality when debating. He uses logic like a magnifying glass to focus the rays of the sun on to his opponent's back.

It is really rare to see an intellectual of his caliber who can 'take it to the street' in this way when it comes to debating ideas.

It is funny - I have read up on alot of Marxist economics. Not because I am a communist - but because I am interested in Marx's theories of value which differ from the 'marginal utility' at the heart of classical economics. And whenever I come across an interesting critique which seems to upend alot of traditional ideas, I always imagine myself debating the ideas with Milton Friedman. At that moment I start to sweat a little at the idea.

I imagine any debate with Friedman would look like this:

[The Lizard of Oz]

(01-12-2014 03:36 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

It reminds me of Richard Feynman and the way he could break down physics into the simplest and most easy to understand concepts.

That is a brilliant analogy, cardguy. Yes -- Friedman is very much like the Richard Feynman of economics. And if you're going to have an intellectual hero, he is a very legitimate choice.

[cardguy]

Yeah - I could rate people like Einstein and Feynman and so on more. But there is just something about Milton Friedman. He strikes a chord with me (as did the comedian Patrice O'Neal), and is one of the very few people I am genuinely sad I never got a chance to hang out with.

Here is Milton Friedman discussing Inheritance Tax. I remember as a naive child thinking all Inheritance Tax should be 100% since it is 'wrong' to pass on advantages and wealth from one generation to the next. So - I imagine this sort of thinking is more common than you might imagine.

But - here is some brilliant Milton Friedman reasoning which spells out the flawed logic in such thinking.

[Ensam]

(01-12-2014 03:54 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Yeah - I could rate people like Einstein and Feynman and so on more. But there is just something about Milton Friedman. He strikes a chord with me (as did the comedian Patrice O'Neal), and is one of the very few people I am genuinely sad I never got a chance to hang out with.

Here is Milton Friedman discussing Inheritance Tax. I remember as a naive child thinking all Inheritance Tax should be 100% since it is 'wrong' to pass on advantages and wealth from one generation to the next. So - I imagine this sort of thinking is more common than you might imagine.

But - here is some brilliant Milton Friedman reasoning which spells out the flawed logic in such thinking.

I really like Milton Friedman too. Here's a great interview he had with Russ Roberts on Econtalk shortly before his death: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_featur..._friedman/.

The thing I respect the most about him is that he was really thoughtful about the arguments he made and largely consistent. Most conservatives make the equal playing field argument to support their policies but then do nothing to ensure one actually exists. To his credit Friedman tackled the problem head on and proposed a negative income tax as a way to solve the problem that welfare is trying to solve but still respect free market principles.

[vinman]

And another thing that he did was explain it with a smile on his face. I joked about him being a Smiling Assassin. He would disarm you with his smile, and destroy your argument, but would never ever be smug about it. And he would ask you questions in such a way that you would either agree or look like an ass digging yourself deeper.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(01-12-2014 03:54 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Yeah - I could rate people like Einstein and Feynman and so on more. But there is just something about Milton Friedman.

Einstein was an immense scientific genius but I mostly find his general remarks to be amiably goofy, and they are certainly greatly overrated. In general, no particular weight should be given to the random musings of scientists, even great ones, on subjects that are outside their area of expertise.

Feynman and Friedman were both truly exceptional in their ability to think clearly about fairly general subjects, and to communicate their thinking in a lucid and compelling manner.

[Duke Castile]

Part of his power wasn't just when he crushed someone with his argument, it was that they loved him afterwards. I don't know if you posted it but there is a clip of him debating Phil Donahue (ultra lib) and by the end Donahue is in love with him.

[speakeasy]

That negative income tax idea as a replacement for welfare is very interesting.

[cardguy]

(01-12-2014 04:35 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Part of his power wasn't just when he crushed someone with his argument, it was that they loved him afterwards. I don't know if you posted it but there is a clip of him debating Phil Donahue (ultra lib) and by the end Donahue is in love with him.

That is a great moment. You can see it in the third video I linked to in my original post:

Also - I can't remember where he said the following. But it is probably my favourite Milton Friedman quotation:

Quote:

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

[Ensam]

After thinking about it a bit more I'm gradually coming around on the ideas Friedman had that I don't agree with. For instance the inheritance tax issue. I certainly don't think it should be 100% but I'm generally for a very steep redistribution of wealth after death. Recently though I've noticed wealthy people have started to realize that passing on entire fortunes to their children isn't necessarily helpful. You see people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates donating a significant portion of their wealth to charity and leaving enough for their children to live well but not extravagantly. Somewhat ironically, I think this is because it's easier now to transfer fortunes to your children than ever before and people are seeing just how damaging it is. If the system still made it difficult to pass fortunes down then the wealthy would be spending all their effort beating the system rather than questioning if it's a good idea in the first place.

[cardguy]

Yeah - if the Inheritance Tax was 100% it would be incredibly difficult to enforce. You would just hide your money and bury it in some woods for your kids to go dig up.

[svenski7]

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

[alphaspiraton]

I listen to Milton Friedman before interviews. He puts all things into perspective, really pumps you up, and gives you a viewpoint to come from which business people love (i.e. the more money the owner of the company makes, the better for everyone else).

[speakeasy]

(01-12-2014 06:46 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

[vinman]

(01-12-2014 06:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 06:46 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  

Great thread.

Milton Friedman was often criticized for being too Machiavellian in his worldview. He simply stated what the facts implied and what everyone was thinking but afraid to say.

One of my favorite Friedman articles addressed charity. He argued that charity should never offered with the tax money gov't receives. So, for example, if the US gov't could spend $2 million to administer smallpox immunizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, it shouldn't.

The reason is because charity is best and most efficient when it comes from the pocket of the people. Not only is gov't charity inefficient (bureaucracy) but its often not the will of the people who are funding it through their taxes. If that amount of purchasing power is left to the people (i.e. not collected via taxes), the money can be donated efficiently to NGOs or private charities.

The caveat is that people are stingy and cheap. Its more than likely that if the money was left to the people, they would be more likely to spend it on booze than the well-being of children in Africa. Not one shit is given by Friedman -- he's not responsible for human behavior, he just reports on it.

This is my big beef with libertarians who believe no welfare and claim that charity will take care of the sick, poor and elderly. Most people do not donate to charity and certainly don't do it consistently. We are selfish for sure. You wouldn't be able to collect enough donations to eradicate hunger or pay for some disabled person's living expenses. It's not happening. I think libertarians know this as well as I, but they just don't care.

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

[cardguy]

The above reminds me of my favourite Milton Friedman clip. Forgot to mention it before...

[Ensam]

(01-12-2014 07:00 PM)vinman Wrote:  

Maybe they would give more if the government allowed them to keep more of their money?

I think that's a bit of a cop out. Charity has historically been handled by religious organizations. People tithed to the church and then the church determined how best to help the needy. People weren't stingy because of peer pressure (or fear of going to hell) not because of the goodness of their hearts. I don't really see the difference between a church administering aid and the government doing it.

[cardguy]

Saw this the other day. Really impressed me.

Milton Friedman describes how just about all government programmes are for the benefit of the middle classes - at the expense of the very rich and the very poor.

I have never heard anyone use logic in this way before.

Everytime I watch a Milton Friedman clip he shows me a whole new perspective on political and economic issues that I have never come across before.