The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman (1980)

Source:The New Democrat

Phil Donahue, is probably as far-left as a TV show host could be, at least in his time. And yet even with his staunch slant and support for government interference, government assistance and government taxation, he was a hell of an interviewer. Especially when it came to intelligent people who came from lets say the opposite side of the political spectrum. Someone like a Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would be another example. Not sure if he ever interviewed Bill Buckley, but that would’ve been a great interview and show as well. Donahue, would let his guests speak. He would also make his case and they would have a back and forth. And he would also get his audience involved.

What you had in Phil Donahue, was a Collectivist. From the left in the form of a Progressive, or even Progressive/Socialist. Making the case that private enterprise, private enterprise and even capitalism come with risks. If not dangerous and perhaps are even bad things. But its better than Marxism and total state-ownership when it comes to economics. But if we’re going to have capitalism and private enterprise, they need to be well-regulated, which means highly regulated, for someone with a more Socialist background. And you need a government big enough to take care of people who don’t do well in the private enterprise system.

Milton, didn’t come the exact opposite direction on the Right. Because he did believe in things like regulations when it came to the environment. And even came out for reforming the safety net, instead of eliminating it. But he didn’t like high taxes and highly centralized government and wanted as little government, especially the Federal Government involvement in the economy. So you would have Donahue in this interview always not just making the case for government and even central government involvement in the economy, but making the case for more government involvement in the economy. And yet these two men could have a very good and productive discussion and debate on these issues. Because they actually listened to each other.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- 'A Conversation On The Free Market'

Source:Liberty Pen- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, talking about the so-called free market, in 1980.

Source:FreeState Now  

"From Milton's award-winning series, "Free To Choose. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

We need to get past the notions of free market and free enterprise, because those things simply do not exist in the developed world as much as Libertarians or economic Libertarians, like to use these terms. What economic Libertarians are talking about things that aren’t real. 

Any economic system that is subjected to taxes and regulations which exist everywhere in the developed world, as well as developing world are not part of any free market. What developed nations or developing nations that are developing fast like Brazil or Mexico or China have, as well as the developed world have are private markets and private enterprise. 

Private enterprise, is a private economic system run by individuals. But subjected to taxes and regulations by government. To perform government services that individuals consume.

And the difference between free enterprise and private enterprise or private markets and free markets and private enterprise and free enterprise, is that in a private enterprise system like in America or Canada (to use as examples) is that they have private enterprise economic system. Where a lot or most of the economy is in private hands owned by people, not government. Which is a private sector, but these private enterprises are subjected to taxes and regulations by government. 

If these countries had free markets and free enterprise, these private companies wouldn’t be subjected to taxes and regulations. Private companies, aren’t free to be bigoted towards their employees, or potential employees, or customers. Or free to pollute the air. They would be in a free market however.

In a true free enterprise system, (and not a made up one) private companies could essentially if not in complete actuality, do whatever they want under law with their companies. Because they wouldn’t have to pay any taxes, or have to deal with regulations, like monopoly laws, because there would essentially be no rules of the road. Because it would be a free market economic system. That is just not the economic system that we have in America, or anywhere else in the developed world. 

As much as Ayn Randian’s dream about in their fantasies for that to come about, if you truly believe in a free market and free enterprise, then you would be against things like corporate welfare. And other taxpayer-funded investments in the economy. And let the true free market decide the success’ and failures of private business’s. Why, because you don’t want government involvement in the economy and taking taxpayer money. But many so-called Conservatives, support corporate welfare and don’t even view it as welfare. So let's stop throwing around labels and terms as if they don’t have any real meaning. 

We obviously don’t have a socialist economic system at least in a pure form. And no developed country does. (And thank God for that!) But again no developed country in the world has an economic system where charity and economic assistance, is in complete private hands. Where taxes and regulations don’t exist. Which is a great thing, because if we did we wouldn’t have the national highway system (to use as an example) because that wouldn’t be very profitable for private companies.

Phil Donahue Show: Professor Milton Friedman (1979)

Source:The Friedman Foundation- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Dr. Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, promoting "Free to Choose" on the show Donahue." 

From Ed Choice

I love this show and love this interview and if I wasn’t three years old when in 1979, I would’ve watched this show myself. Because here are two guys who agree on practically nothing, coming from both ends of the political spectrum. With Classical Liberal Milton Friedman on the Right and Social Democrat (let's say) Phil Donahue on the Left. But knowledgable enough about the others side and these issues to have a good discussion or debate with each other. To do it intelligently and respectfully without yelling at each other.

You have the ultimate of individualists in Classical Liberal Milton Friedman. And about the ultimate as collectivists come in Social Democrat Phil Donahue. So you have a debate between someone who believes in a free society, not an Anarchist, but in the sense that everyone should have the right to live their own lives. As long as they aren’t infringing on others to live their own lives. Against a Collectivist who believes that we are all part of the same society and have a responsibility meaning government to look after the welfare of others. And even at times protect people from themselves.

I’m with Professor Friedman on most if not all the social issues. Legalizing narcotics across the board, would be where I would differ. We agree on marijuana, but I would decriminalize the other narcotics and treat users and addicts as patients and not addicts, at their expense. 

And I’m with the Professor on most issues when it comes to economic freedom and policy. Except I believe you need government help and empower people who are down get themselves up and off public assistance all together. And to protect customers and innocent people in general from predators who would hurt them. And profit from their bad behavior. 

But generally speaking, at least, I tend to come down a lot more on the side of Milton Friedman, then I could ever even dream of being on the same side of Phil Donahue.

Eric Holmberg: 'Milton Friedman Tries To Help a Future Wall Street Occupier (1978)'

Source:Eric Holmberg- a young, idealistic leftist (let's say) questioning Professor Milton Friedman in 1978.

Source:FreeState Now

"Churchill once observed, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."  Today we have a new breed of liberal, people who want the government and corporations to spend whatever money necessary to keep them safe, employed, housed. fed and healthy...and in possession of a smart phone.  But if they knock up their girlfriend, they want to be able to dispose of the unwanted child as inexpensively (free would be good) as possible.  

Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, takes a moment and tries to get one young "99 percenter" to think through his presuppositions." 

From Eric Holmberg

If you around in America in the 1970s and survived it and aren't currently incarcerated and are living a healthy, productive, independent, life, I congratulate you. 

In late 1970s Ford Motor Company in order to save a lot of money and produce a lot of cheep cars and then sell them, produced the Ford Pinto. Which by today's standards, at least doesn't even qualify as an economy car, it was so badly and cheaply made. This car was so bad an unsafe to drive that the gas tank was in front of the license plat in the rear, meaning if you hit a Pinto in the rear, the car could literally explode. 

What this kid in the video was trying I guess to find out from Professor Friedman was does he believe that there should be some real regulations on the types of cars that are allowed to be built and sold in America, given the experiences with the Ford Pinto, Mercury Maverick, Chevrolet Chevette. With Professor Friedman essentially making the at what cost argument: How much are you willing to spend to make sure that every American car is as safe as possible? 

Sidewinder 77: Milton Friedman- 'On Self-Interest and Profit Motive'

Source:Sidewinder 77- Chicago University Professor Milton Friedman, giving a lecture in 1978.

Source:FreeState Now 

"This clip is from the 15-part lecture series, "Milton Friedman Speaks" 

From Sidewinder 77

The reason for capitalism or in America the reason for American capitalism, is that in an economy like that, it's assumed that the people can make it on their own if given the opportunity. That there’s a limit to what government can do and should do. 

The whole point of constitutional law and limited government and federalism, that government doesn’t do everything right and when it tries to do too much, like taking so much out of the economy to take care of its people, doing things for the people that they can do for themselves. like run a business, make their own health care decisions, plan for their retirement, decide where to send their kids to school, etc, and you can go down the line, that it becomes expensive, intrusive, and inefficient.  

But if you empower the people to not just make their own decisions, but the right decisions, educated people tend to become free people, which frees up a lot of resources for government to do what we actually need it to do as a free society, like protect and defend. Not try to un our lives for us.