The Power of the Market
Milton Friedman’s 1980 ‘Free to Choose’ series was taken off Google Video for a while, but now it’s back. These videos are quite fair and balanced; the discussion group after the main film has a wide range of views, and Friedman is often shouted down by his peers.
I will post one video per week so hopefully we can have our own conversation on the merits of the case Friedman presents in the video. Each video is about an hour long. I know of no Australian equivalent to this fine series, but perhaps there will be some day.
Advertisement
7 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Libertarians and ele… on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… 'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Brendan Halfweeg on The Santa Claus Governmen…
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Not all recessions are caused by the Fed February 10, 2012More middle of the night blogging. My economics is classical. The almost perfect overlay of my own book can be found in a series of notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor at the LSE in 1927-29 from lectures delivered by the great American economist, Allyn Young. These notes were only published around a decade ago but [...]Steve Kates
- Where’s Romney? February 10, 2012It is quite extraordinary to watch the American political process up close. Now, I admit I have been busy and I don’t watch much of the television and do not read a lot of the press. But before I arrived the thing I did want to do was see more of Mitt Romney since from [...]Steve Kates
- inCISe
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- Quiggin versus Carling and Kirchner February 9, 2012John Quiggin accuses Robert Carling and I of ‘an appalling breach of elementary standards of research’ for not acknowledging that Alberto Alesina’s work on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus and consolidations is ‘highly controversial.’ In fact, we referenced Alesina’s work precisely because it has featured so prominently in public debate, including in the […]Stephen Kirchner
- Police going too far February 9, 2012According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, police are lecturing parents for letting their children walk to the shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying such incidents will be reported to the Department of Community Services (DOCs) if a child is considered at risk. But when is a child ‘at risk’? One mother was told it was inappr […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
Good news…PBS will be screening a new Milton Friedman documentary in January in the US. You can get all the details on freedomtochoosemedia.org.
Matt
To start things off, in this video Friedman makes the amazing claim that in the late 19th/early 20th century, US central government spending was never more than 3% of national income.
Today however we are:
- over taxed
- over governed
- over regulated
The most important point to come out of this video however is the link between reduced government intervention and greater scientific innovation.
P.S. Matt your link doesn’t seem to work. i think you meant this URL instead: http://freetochoosemedia.org/
I have not seen the video but it stands to reason that in a low tax environment the commercialisation of innovative ideas and technology is much easier. Corporate taxes sap start ups of the self funding growth option and make them more beholden to bankers and equity partners. And the laws surrounding business operations can be hellish for the first timer (and for the old timers also).
The strange thing is that this was released in 1980. While watching the video though, I recognised in those opposing Friedman much the same sort of views being put out by the ACTU and humanities academics today.
Lots more economists are probably on Friedman’s side now. But unfortunately (or fortunately) there aren’t enough of them to make a difference in elections.
We’re still left here to persuade people on the same points Milton was arguing about more than 20 years ago. Which is why the CIS and IPA should start making videos. Fast.
How hard can it be to ignore the economics and stress the point that a free market is a fundamentally moral system?
Sukrit,
The fight for liberty is long and hard and endless. 20 years is nothing in this battle of ideas. The issues have been thrashing around for many centuries and possibly since the dawn of civilization. There are works from a 14th century Islamic scholar outlining the tendancy for older kingdoms to move to excesive levels of taxation before ultimately losing their dynamic edge and then declining. Do not imagine that this is a war that will be won in our lifetimes. At best we might hope for a few successful battles. Sorry.
Regards,
Terje.
“What would happen if the government decided what scientific questions we should pursue by fiat? Most scientists would tell you that new discoveries would be stifled because the scientists could not pursue those questions that they find most interesting. Bureaucrats would not be as educated in all the areas the scientists were studying, nor could the enterprise benefit from the plurality of techniques employed in the absence of central planning. Science — it would appear — benefits from a form of entreperneurial competition.”
Link
Most scientists have to do research with one eye on funding. That is true whether the funds come from the private sector or a central authority. I do think the main problem is that being an active technocrat and a business person is made quite onereous by tax and regulation. I think most of the problems occur at the commercialisation stage rather than at the innovation stage. Having said that I would also prefer that basic research was funded by some means other than the state.