[Hawkeye_a]

The economic and political situations around the world of the past century and particularly the past decade got me to start thinking about why and how such systems either empower or impoverish peoples. My research lead to a TV series by Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate(Economics), called "Free To Choose"(1980s), in which he analyzes different social, economic and political systems.

With the looming U.S. election I recommend watching this series to try and get a better understanding of the vested interests involved and to ultimately make a better informed decision before casting your vote.

Part 1: The Power Of The Market
Part 2: The Tyranny of Control
Part 3: Anatomy Of a Crisis
Part 4: From Cradle to Grave
Part 5: Created Equal
Part 6: What is Wrong With Our Schools
Part 7: Who Protects the Consumer
Part 8: Who Protects the Worker
Part 9: How to Cure Inflation
Part 10: How to Stay Free
(All YouTube links)

Each episode in this 10 part series consists of a half hour of Dr. Friedman talking about a certain aspect of the economy and the way different political systems around the world have managed it in the past, and the latter half discussing and debating his views with politicians, entrepreneurs, heads of trade unions, economists, etc...many of them passionately disagree with him. (A neat way of playing devils advocate, especially in this format)

Cheers

[subego]

My dad used to call this show "Free to Be Milton Friedman".

[besson3c]

I think it should be called "Free to Be Milton Friedman Blahous"

[turtle777]

Thanks for the links, Hawkeye.

Don't expect cheers from the sheeple, they love the handouts more than the truth.

-t

[subego]

Well, you got me. My dad did in fact hand out that Marlo Thomas joke.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Thanks for the links, Hawkeye.

Don't expect cheers from the sheeple, they love the handouts more than the truth.

-t

Do expect cheers from Friedman's sheeple, who don't know anything about human psychology, and how the world really works, as opposed to how they dream it does.

[subego]

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Do expect cheers from Friedman's sheeple, who don't know anything about human psychology, and how the world really works, as opposed to how they dream it does.

Uhm, yeah, you're not making any sense.

-t

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, you got me. My dad did in fact hand out that Marlo Thomas joke.

I got where you were going.

Free To Be...You And Me - YouTube

[Athens]

Going to take me a few days to watch it all but I already found flaws early on with the first one. That part when he is in China town talking about those Chinese workers, the unsafe conditions, low wages, lack of ventilation. If we did cut out the rules and regulations which have all been put in place for reasons we might as well be a third world country. Its those rules and regulations that create the safer work environments.

A example.

Under current rules and regulations a truck driver cant drive beyond 12 hours at a time. His truck can not be loaded beyond 60 000 pounds with a 8 wheel trailer. A daily log must be kept of inspections. Is supposed to travel at or below the speed limit.

Under Friedmans flawed total free market model, not of those rules would be in place except maybe the speed limit. So drivers could push 14 hours at a time for economic gain. They could push tailors to 75000 pounds. Spend less time or not do inspection reports at all. And when the drivers of this company are doing it to be competitive other drivers of other companies will do it. The bar will get pushed higher and higher. Perhaps 15 hour day, 85000 pounds until we start seeing accidents all the time. Then it becomes a cost to benefit analyst. Keep pushing the limits or scale back. If We have 2 accidents a month with 14 hours a day and 75000pounds does the cost savings warrant this.

You can apply this all over the place. Workers will be pushed harder, get less pay and benefits and suffer worse working conditions. Complete and total free market with no regulations do not work. If I had the option to setup shop and do what ever I wanted, I would setup near the Mexico border and hire illegal workers and pay them next to nothing to have the competitive advantage.

[Hawkeye_a]

Athens (and others),
My experience(life) has been fortunate to witness(first and second hand) the transformation of several "third world" countries from so-called planned economies to more open and freer economies. And if you ask the people over there what happened to their opportunities, lifestyles and work conditions, i think they would categorically reject your claim.

Workers have a "product" to trade; their time. If you have an open market, with unprotected monopolies and vested interests, will they compete for workers? Of course. I have witnessed it first hand, here in Australia people who work in mining are under such short supply that their wages are 3-4X what they would have received otherwise. (I suggest you watch "Who protects the worker")

It is uncanny how much i agree with Friedman and his economic philosophies. What you are witnessing the U.S. is the transformation of your country from free and open economy, to a welfare and planned state (what ever happened to all those manufacturing jobs?). And what is happening in the BRIC nations is the opposite IMHO. But if you do want to debate these issues, please watch that series in it's entirety as a lot of what you have mentioned has been brought up and debated.

It's a lot harder to realize the macro "stuff" and the flow on effects, but at it's core the series is about being "free to choose"; a worker or a customer being free to trade with an employer or producer who are free to trade, and the terms and contract of that trade being between those involved.

Cheers

[Athens]

I agree with MOST not all of his ideas in principle. (Im half way through the series) BUT many of his economic ideas CAN NOT work in a world of globalization. His ideas would work well if the US was a isolationist state doing trade internally or with other countries that followed the exact same model and where like in kind. Example Canada, US and Britain (assuming all 3 went to totally free markets)

It can't work when you add China, India into it because of the totally different stages of development, wages, living standards.

Use the US Steal industry as a example from his films. If the US was to drop the import fees on cheaper steel, steel which is cheaper because another countries tax payers subsidize the industry, the US Steel industry would have zero chance to compete. It is UNFAIR trade. The only 2 options is to either subsidize the US Steel industry to put it on equal footing OR not do trade with places that are not also a totally free market. In order for his ideas to work the globe, all people would have to be a free enterprise market the exact same.

His section on banking, and welfare which is the one im watching now im in a lot of agreement with. I am just not in agreement with his free enterprise ideas when applied to a sole state in a global world that isn't a free enterprise.

And there is still a place for SOME regulations on health/working conditions and environment because I don't have faith that free enterprise markets can deal with that on its own. The driving force of profit will sacrifice both. But we could do away with regulation that controls the market with the most minimal of regulations that deal with safety, employment standards and environment. A regulation that states steel toe boots and protective eye glasses and hearing in noisy work environments is a example of one regulation I can live with.

[Athens]

How does welfare work in the US, I just watched the section where he talks about a negative income tax. And that is mostly how our welfare system works here in BC. Im curious now how welfare in the US works?

[Athens]

I really like the negative income tax, It would allow for a lot of bureaucracy to be removed, and a lot of regulations to be removed. Wouldn't need a min wage for example. The only modification to Miltons version of it would be a small requirement. That to qualify a person must be working or in school or volunteering.