Milton Friedman on Limited Government

[WillMagic]

link

It's been called the best defense of limited government ever made. I have my disagreements with Milton Friedman...but he is nearly flawless in this interview.

Take note, specifically, of his arguments against the minimum wage law. The minimum wage, as I mentioned earlier, is not a bad idea because it is bad for employers so much as it is bad for employees, as it outlaws low-wage emplyoment contracts.

Enjoy/discuss.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
link

It's been called the best defense of limited government ever made. I have my disagreements with Milton Friedman...but he is nearly flawless in this interview.

Take note, specifically, of his arguments against the minimum wage law. The minimum wage, as I mentioned earlier, is not a bad idea because it is bad for employers so much as it is bad for employees, as it outlaws low-wage emplyoment contracts.

Enjoy/discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's such a shame that he doesn't apply his principles consistently to denounce government as a whole.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
link

It's been called the best defense of limited government ever made. I have my disagreements with Milton Friedman...but he is nearly flawless in this interview.

Take note, specifically, of his arguments against the minimum wage law. The minimum wage, as I mentioned earlier, is not a bad idea because it is bad for employers so much as it is bad for employees, as it outlaws low-wage emplyoment contracts.

Enjoy/discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's such a shame that he doesn't apply his principles consistently to denounce government as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really is. Whenever I watch Free to Choose I always wish he would stop conceding points and just man up.

[iron81]

I will point out that Friedman in this clip supported progressive taxation and the New Deal era public works projects, so he is not a true ACer. In addition, many of his arguments have been addressed in the other threads.

I have a problem with Friedman's holding out 19th Centruy America as an example of "the greatest improvement in the human condition in history" to support the idea that laissez faire capitalism is superior to modern liberalism. I submit that the 20th century in America, Europe and Japan representted a much larger jump in the quality of living. In 1800, the vast majority of the American population was employed as farmers, with maybe 15% of the American population living in cities. In 1900 by my estimate roughly half of the people were still farmers whose lives hadn't changed much and the other half weren't much better off, since this was the era of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Does anyone really think that the jump standard of living then was higher than it was from 1900 until now? In fact, I believe that massive improvement in the developed in the 20th century proves that modern liberalism is an effective strategy in managing a society.

Since you mentioned it, I will address Friedman's views on the minimum wage. He calls is a law forbidding the hire of low skilled workers or something to that effect. I believe that this is not true. Employers pay workers not according to their value to the employer, but rather the lowest wage they can get away with. Of course employers will be willing to employ more people at $3/hr than $5.15/hour. But there are enough minimum wage jobs in the country that those who want that type of employment can find it.

Also, I think that the reason Friedman doesn't bash govt in general is that he understands that for better or worse that we owe our civilization to government.

Off topic for a second but something that I came up with thinking about AC from the other threads. For those of you who do not argue for AC as a philosophical exercise but would actually like to implement it in reality, you have to recognize that wholesale social upheaval like that is very high variance in terms of whether it will work. In addition, we have a very small bankroll in the form of one society. Sure, what we have ain't perfect but it is pretty good.

Interesting note I came across while I was putzing around on the Census website for this post: the Census Bureau predicts that the population of America will reach 300 million on October 13th of this year, which just so happens to be Friday the 13th. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
I will point out that Friedman in this clip supported progressive taxation and the New Deal era public works projects, so he is not a true ACer.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has not been, nor ever claimed to be an ACer. He has always been very pro-statist, but just like *every other statist*, he wants the government to intervene *when and where he personally thinks it should*, and feels that if he can get enough of a mob of angry, pitchfork and torch wielding people together on his side, he can stuff his views down your throat.

Here is what true economists feel about Milton Friedman-

Milton Friedman Unraveled

The Curse of [Friedmans] Withholding Tax

[NSchandler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will point out that Friedman in this clip supported progressive taxation and the New Deal era public works projects, so he is not a true ACer.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has not been, nor ever claimed to be an ACer. He has always been very pro-statist, but just like *every other statist*, he wants the government to intervene *when and where he personally thinks it should*, and feels that if he can get enough of a mob of angry, pitchfork and torch wielding people together on his side, he can stuff his views down your throat.

Here is what true economists feel about Milton Friedman-

Milton Friedman Unraveled

The Curse of [Friedmans] Withholding Tax

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole "Friedman is a statist" idea is, as far as I can tell, an origin of the Mises Institute crowd, and really only adopted in that circle. The Mises Institute by and large does not consist of real economists, and even most free-market economists (such as myself) don't view them as top-caliber economists.

When analyzing Friedman's arguments, you have to keep in mind his audience. Friedman addresses people who disagree with him on a fundamental level. He's trying to convince people who are generally statists. In doing so, he tries to find some common ground to have a conversation.

For example, when he argues that school vouchers are superior to our current system, he's granting the idea that education should be publically funded. Not necessarily because he believes this in his heart, but because he's trying to start a discussion. Basically, he's saying "ok, even if you believe education should be publically provided, our current system is not the way to do it."

In my opinion, it's not fair to call Friedman a statist simply because he's talking to the "enemy." After all, that's the point, isn't it? I mean, economists like Rothbard (or Lew Rockwell) are read only by a bunch of people who already agree with them and like to chuckle as they makes fun of everybody who disagrees with them.

But Friedman and Hayek (who is also accused of being a statist) consistently addressed those who disagreed with them. And who did more to promote liberty in the 20th century than Hayek and Friedman?

[Borodog]

Friedman is a statist because he advocates the existence of the state. He made his name advocating a state-controlled fiat money supply. If that doesn't make one a statist, what does?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The Mises Institute by and large does not consist of real economists,

[/ QUOTE ]

Substantiate this. And your credentials are . . . ?

[ QUOTE ]
and even most free-market economists (such as myself)

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe the free market can completely provide for services that are currently largely coercively monopolized by governments, like roads, education, health care, consumer protection, law, police, courts, money, security, etc?

[ QUOTE ]
don't view them as top-caliber economists.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Free-market economists" who don't believe in the free-market are oxymorons. And their opinions of who is a "top-caliber economist" is hence clearly suspect.

[NSchandler]

[ QUOTE ]
Friedman is a statist because he advocates the existence of the state. He made his name advocating a state-controlled fiat money supply. If that doesn't make one a statist, what does?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we're using the term statism in different senses. To me, advocating the mere existence of the state does not make one a statist. Rather, a statist is one who advocates significant state intervention. It's of course a nebulous definition, since "significant" is a fuzzy term.

If you're using the term statist to refer to anybody who advocates any state functioning in any form, I guess you're right that Milton Friedman is a statist by that standard. But that is not typically the way the term is used, and so I think it's a bit misleading to call Friedman a statist unless you explicitly state that your own usage is different from conventional usage.

According to your definition, everybody is either an anarchist or a statist, right? And so Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase and Ludwig von Mises are in the same category as Leon Trotsky, Gunnar Myrdal, and Paul Samuelson? That doesn't seem a very helpful definition if you ask me.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Friedman is a statist because he advocates the existence of the state. He made his name advocating a state-controlled fiat money supply. If that doesn't make one a statist, what does?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we're using the term statism in different senses. To me, advocating the mere existence of the state does not make one a statist. Rather, a statist is one who advocates significant state intervention. It's of course a nebulous definition, since "significant" is a fuzzy term.

If you're using the term statist to refer to anybody who advocates any state functioning in any form, I guess you're right that Milton Friedman is a statist by that standard. But that is not typically the way the term is used, and so I think it's a bit misleading to call Friedman a statist unless you explicitly state that your own usage is different from conventional usage.

According to your definition, everybody is either an anarchist or a statist, right? And so Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase and Ludwig von Mises are in the same category as Leon Trotsky, Gunnar Myrdal, and Paul Samuelson? That doesn't seem a very helpful definition if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the most helpful definition. The intellectual gulf between the minarchist and the totalitarian is tiny compared to that between the anarchist and the minarchist.

One either advocates the state or one does not. That is pretty much the standard definition of "statist" vs. "anarchist."

And while von Mises would not have called himself an anarchist, he effectively demolished the idea of the state when he showed that the only way "governments" can serve their stated purposes is if they are completely voluntary in both participation and funding, i.e. they cease to become governments at all, but are rather voluntary organizations.