How Milton Friedman Broke The American Economy | The Class Room Ft.

[@yoursinisterdoge2785]

Nothing says supporting freedom and democracy like advising military dictators in Latin America.

[@GTAVictor9128]

Nobody else in the world got to enjoy free helicopter rides. Chileans had it good!

[@Illstatefishing]

It's pronounced Pinoshit!!

[@barbaraguillette-bl6wn]

Milton Friedman was the devil incarnate ,he went to Chili knowing he could not enact his policies in the US , many people were killed because of him, Pinochet tied many alive to cut up railroad tracks put in helicopters some alive and dumped in the ocean. The survivors got the tracks I heard they made a memorial out of them.

[@barbaraguillette-bl6wn]

@@vectorhacker-r2 he did so Pinochet was his apostle

[@weirdblackcat]

@@vectorhacker-r2 nooooooo stop speaking the truth about my favourite hero milton friedman 😭😭😭

[@aslandus]

*Children playing in public parks, families happily consuming goods and having parties, workers whistling as they go to their union-represented job that they enjoy and get paid well for.* Milton Friedman: "Disgusting. Get rid of it all."

[@Zyo117]

"The unwashed masses must be unwashed."

[@TheSeeker225]

I know right ? Hopefully there's a special place in hell for his ass.

[@vectorhacker-r2]

Wow, what a horrible monster you’ve created in your mind.

[@dominicfucinari1942]

Did he want to create a dystopia because he was delusional enough to think his allies could hoard everything with there still being enough left over for the masses?

[@consumerwatch7479]

Pretty much

[@DonaldMark-ne7se]

Our economy struggling with uncertainties, housing issues, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and pandemic aftermath, causing instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions need urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth.

[@kevinmarten]

Things are strange right now. The US dollar is becoming less valuable because of inflation, and other powerful nations waking up to trade in their own currencies. Good thing is, a lot of people still turn to the Dollar because of the safety is somehow assures. I'm worried about my retirement savings of about $420,000 losing value because of these factors and more. Where else can we keep our money?

[@JacquelinePerrira]

It's a delicate season now, so you can do little or nothing on your own. Hence I’ll suggest you get yourself a financial expert that can provide you with valuable financial information and assistance

[@kevinmarten]

How can I reach this adviser of yours? because I'm seeking for a more effective investment approach on my savings?

[@kevinmarten]

She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran an online search on her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.

[@whataboutthis10]

SPAM by collaborators of the system!

[@Madaboutmada]

As a former Californian no thanks to Reagan and his vile policies. I remember the time he closed so many mental health hospitals and it was like a homelessness crisis was born overnight. California still hasn't got out of that hole and it's been over fifty years. 😞

[@Supremechairuser]

Also, made colleges charge tuition. Before him, UCs and Cal-States were close to free. Regan cut that.

[@rickb3650]

Homelessness was indeed created by reagan/Friedman, but it was all across the nation. When he was elected Governor, CA had what was acknowledged as the best education system in the world and he destroyed it. I had the misfortune of going to school in CA when Prop 13 went into effect. Economists at the time warned us what would happen and the people of CA ignored them.

[@nunyabidness3075]

Oh yeah, and he used nuclear weapons! Oh wait, did he? No, you can tell all the things Reagan didn’t do because KZbinrs say he did, but don’t connect him to it.

[@Owesomasaurus]

The thing is, there was widespread abuse in American mental health institutions and many advocates hoped that community based care would improve outcomes for patients. But of course doing that would require funding community based care and well we all know how the Gipper felt about funding health...

[@rickb3650]

@@Owesomasaurus No there wasn't, any more than there were "welfare queens" living large and driving new Cadillacs from the fortunes they made by having 6 kids and milking the welfare state. They lied to us. But you know what is true? It's easier to fool people than it is to convince people that they've been fooled. Here we are, over half a century after the fact, with access to all the evidence, and the lies are still being repeated by people who "remember".

[@Philusteen]

So glad to see FD on here. I've learned a lot from his stuff - he's a great example of KZbin in its most valuable journalistic state. As is this channel, of course.

[@GulfCoastGrit]

💯 Agree. I’ve learned so much about myself just watching him and Foreign, plus I’ve been exposed to a lot of other great creators through him as well.

[@rridderbusch518]

It's my first time seeing FD. Do you know what his full name is? I like him!

[@Philusteen]

@@rridderbusch518 I do not - I've just watched several of his videos.

[@GulfCoastGrit]

@@rridderbusch518 youtube.com/@FDSignifire

[@user-cg6fd4in1d]

Agreed. I learned a lot from KZbin in general. A lot of great channels on here. I would say Second Thought is my favorite.

[@RJKYEG]

The size and scope of the US federal government (and many state and municipal governments) has grown to be bigger than ever before, which is antithetical to the economic policies Milton Friedman advocated for.

[@ryanmarosy2940]

Nailed it! More inflation here we come!

[@holobiont3197]

Not sure where you got that but the US federal tax take as a percentage of GDP has remained fairly static since WW2 and if you include veterans pensions, more than half of it now goes to the military, prisons, and police. Are you proposing cutting those areas?

[@ryanmarosy2940]

@@holobiont3197 yes. Gov spending in the past was 10% of GDP now its over 50%. The rule should be don't spend more than you grow your economy. If the GDP isn't there they should not get to spend the money. This incentivizes gov to grow the economy instead of spending money they dont have and hitting all of us with the inflation tax.

[@holobiont3197]

@@ryanmarosy2940 I don't know if you believe that but it's not true. The stats are readily available.

[@Goodyear1776]

@@holobiont3197 I took a look at the "readily available" stats. Tax take as a percent of GDP has more than doubled since 1947, from 15.93% to 36.26% in 2022. Check the IMF's "Government expenditure, percent of GDP", I'd send a link but I think youtube will block it. And how about you get your facts straight before making claims

[@victorsalazar445]

Thank you. What a great video. Love the Crocs.

[@EvilHamsterbot]

It is incredible to me how much we go through this cycle: Pull each other down, like crabs in a bucket. Wait for corpses. Climb them. Pull each other down again, only slightly higher. Ad infinitum while the fisherman looks on, adding higher walls to the bucket.

[@evansmothermon1547]

That was poetic, and profound. I hope you don’t mind if I steal this for future conversation.

[@EvilHamsterbot]

@@evansmothermon1547 happy it was profound enough for you 😅 it's publicly posted, feel free to use it

[@whataboutthis10]

@@EvilHamsterbot how you talk about publicly posted material sounds like no copyright is rightfully expected after posting. Very wrong. I mean go ahead allowing anyone take your shiet, however advocating intellectual property rights wouldn't apply to any publicly posted material..super sinister.

[@EvilHamsterbot]

@@whataboutthis10 what in the hell are you saying? Could you try again, but coherently? Oh, it's a public comment bro not an idea to patent. It's even a constantly used metaphor. Chill out and go outside.

[@henry1138]

The amount of inaccuracies in this video is crazy. Friedman’s solution was to bail out of the banks? Wrong. He has been quoted many times saying the most important part of competitive enterprise is to let inefficient businesses fail. Friedman hated the New Deal? Wrong. Friedman applauded FDR’s measures for relieving the economic ills of the Great Depression, precisely because, in his view, the government had caused the Great Depression through a contraction of the money supply from 1929-1933. Also, your little racial comment on the natural rate of unemployment makes absolutely no sense. The point of the natural rate of unemployment is that regardless of government policy, there is an employment rate that corresponds to the real productive capacity of the macroeconomy, and in the long run, the government cannot change this rate through mere demand stimulus, as had been previously thought by all the “Keynesian” presidents you cited (and was proven wrong in the 70s).

[@chatsagain]

Milton was critical of the New Deal and was very opinionated against the National Recovery Administration, which basically is the New Deal. He was not opposed to unemployment assistance and had a few things right, but I, for one, am thankful for FDR and The New Deal. Government oversight i.e regulations is needed as we are learning why inflation is ridiculous.

[@henry1138]

@@chatsagain The NRA was a terrible idea. It was essentially a licensing agency and artificial cartel. It was not “basically” the New Deal as it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935. The early New Deal involved emergency recovery measures that Friedman largely supported. The later New Deal involved more structural reforms to banks that Friedman opposed. Not sure what the inflation comment is supposed to be referencing. If it’s related to the post-COVID inflation, corporate profits being maintained in periods of high inflation is not a new phenomenon. Once inflation becomes entrenched in consumer expectations, corporations take advantage, but this requires an initial surge in prices. While corporations exacerbated inflation to a degree, it was caused by the massive government stimulus aligning with supply shortages following COVID.

[@AA80453]

New Deal didn’t do squat

[@tonytooshort]

​@@henry1138lmaooo

[@tonytooshort]

So did he support the new deal or not? You state in your first cmnt that he did, but when you were called out on it you responded with well he supported the beginning of the new deal but opposed the latter new deal. 😅 Which is it?

[@serenasmith2859]

A perfect storm is brewing in the United States. Inflation, bank collapse, severe drought in the agricultural belt, recession, food shortages, diesel fuel and heating oil shortages, sales drop, available automobile shortages and prices, the price of living place. It's all coming together and it could lead to a real disaster towards the end of this year (or sooner). With inflation currently at about 6%, my primary concern is how to maximize my savings/retirement fund of about $300k which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains.

[@jamesharrison6569]

The uncertainties accompanying this present market is more reasons I have my daily investment decisions guided by a portfolio-coach seeing that their entire skill set is based on going long and short at the same time, they employ a profit-driven strategy based on individual risk tolerance...

[@jamesharrison6569]

My advisor is *‘’SOFIA ERAILDA SEMA’’.* She’s highly qualified and experienced in the financial market. She has extensive knowledge of portfolio diversity and is considered an expert in the field. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market

[@tomasinacovell4293]

And a Democratic party that is 60 years behind the times in dealing with the GOP today.

[@anderseckstrand7033]

Look at this BS advertisement masquerading as an organic YT comment thread! 🤣

[@piccalillipit9211]

@@anderseckstrand7033 - The irony is it got 1k likes LOL

[@aslandus]

As for historical figures that might be worth talking about, Edmund Burke and his peers basically wrote the book on conservatism in an effort to postulate how capitalism could be used to preserve the hierarchical systems of royalty and the noble class against the rising push for democracy, which included removing the notion of labor value from the economic lexicon so they could pin the value of goods to their sale price rather than how hard they were to produce or any intrinsic worth they might have. Given the arguments made by people like NFT bros for why their monkey pictures are valuable, Mr. Burke's ideas might be surprisingly relevant to today's economic problems.

[@worldofdoom995]

Complete and utter bullshit

[@mikebaum5976]

It's not that complicated..the more of something, the less value it has..whether diamonds, sand, food, or money..more low skilled people..more cheap labor..more money printed..less dollar value..simple, ..it's big gov. That prints more money - devaluing the currency..all while not suffering the results themselves..government supplies no value based goods/while simultaneously being the largest employer by far..there are 80,000 domestic employees in the C.I.A., that one..of hundreds of Gov. Departments, 86,000, were just added to the I.R.S. ( Friedman was for a very small government.. they add no value while burdening the people).. What of the 30 books Friedman wrote have you read?

[@Baccanaso]

Democracy and the push for capitalism is ultimately a system where the merchants and the clergy take over and become the new aristocracy while the aristocracy and the people are made irrelevant ie look at how Democracy replaced Constitutional Monarchies in most places.

[@laurentiuvladutmanea3622]

​@@mikebaum5976 Please. Your claims about government do not fit observed reality

[@mikebaum5976]

@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 ok... explain.., in what way.

[@eddielopez5708]

The oil embargo was in 1974. I lived through it. In Brooklyn, NYC. My dad was pissed.

[@raristy1]

Same here

[@Sparklfoot]

Another aspect of Reagan’s term as California’s governor was to close mental institutions, suddenly the Republicans had produced homelessness in our towns and cities.

[@worldofdoom995]

Thanks to the SPLC who demanded it

[@brettmcclain9289]

If only most homeless people in LA where from CA, then it would matter.

[@Rays_Bad_Decisions]

That's just liberal lies. San Fran spends 85k a year per homeless person to liberal non profits to solve the homeless problem. NYC gave all the money to deblasios wife's non profit

[@johnfitzgerald7082]

@@brettmcclain9289 most homeless people in California dwell roughly in the areas they lived in prior to becoming homeless. Many were born in the cities where they are now homeless.

[@KD-ou2np]

Well... to be fair a lot of mental instituions were hellish places that hired people who get kicks out of being cruel and having power over vulnerable people. That was part of the reason for the backlash against them. Bad PR. But it certainly wasn't better to just dump everyone on the streets.

[@markpashia7067]

The big problem with this classroom is that most americans have no idea how "progressive" tax brackets work. The wealthy were never taxed at those high rates on all of their income. When we talk about those tax rates it is only on the money over the prior bracket. Everyone making at least fifty thousand pays the same tax on that first fifty thousand, but money over that could cross into another bracket that was at a higher rate so only that excess money was taxed at the higher rate and added to the tax on the first fifty thousand. That continued up the ladder until you got to your total income. This encouraged those wealthy folks to reinvest into their companies and the nation. Why give 90% of it to the government when you could just buy new machinery to make your company more efficient next year? By encouraging them to keep their income lower this way it made things better for everyone. Only stupid people would pay that tax and stupid people rarely have that kind of money. It was the stick that went with the carrot of loopholes. Now they have all the loopholes without the stick and they love it. And our nation suffers. I would love to see one on Alan Greenspan and his next logical step on this road. Also how Greenspan worshiped Ayn Rand such that we ended up with members of congress making her required reading for staffers. Ayn Rand did more damage to this nation that anyone else I can think of.

[@GruntKF]

Agreed. Rand was a disaster and still is, heritage foundation, foundation for economic education, and other think tanks still peddle her works and are often financed by big oil cus they know her philosophy is one that lets them not only get away with their crimes but be rewarded for them. Truly sick stats of affairs

[@joshuatall8134]

do you know why most of us don't understand taxes...because no one can explain it, in any sensical way, to the average person. It is all double talk and academic B.S!

[@ciello___8307]

Excellent explanation of the thought process behind those high tax policies. The rich obviously wont want to pay that high rate, so they reinvest!!!

[@mateusmachadomartinsjunior4309]

​​@@joshuatall8134never quite understoond why basic economics isn't taught in high school

[@markpashia7067]

@@ciello___8307 It is the truth. Almost no one paid those rates to the government. Why do you think so many built libraries and donated to charities? The goodness of their heart? Or a tax right off? Charities are struggling today because of these lower tax rates at the top.

[@shabadoob]

I like this presenter! Very genuine and just upbeat/funny despite talking about a very serious and sad situation. Keep it up!

[@Nortarachanges]

He has his own KZbin channel, and it is amazing! High recommend! F. D. Signifier

[@uasparts]

Yeah, I love this guy too. He’s an excellent reporter

[@nunyabidness3075]

He doesn’t back up anything he says. If you like him, it’s because you already agreed with him. He’s worse than Shapiro who mostly backs up his arguments, but isn’t really changing anyone’s mind

[@shabadoob]

@@nunyabidness3075 Shapiro is just a fast talker that has loaded points and data that serves a narrative. Its a quick gotcha answer from him from guests that cannot provide stats themselves off the top of their head. Everyone has their biases though. But this presenter has charisma and historical knowledge from another political spectrum. Only way one can grow and question their thoughts is by listening to both sides and coming to your own conclusion.

[@nunyabidness3075]

@@shabadoob That’s not the only way to grow. The better way is to listen to people who offer complete arguments. In fact, someone who did that quite well, was Milton Friedman. Go listen to him. You may not agree with him, but you’ll see why he was so persuasive. He offers full arguments.

[@FreddieVee]

In my freshman year of college in the early 1960s, my Economics 101 professor had us read a typical Keynesian book on Economics and "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman. We had to write a term paper based on the two divergent theories. I was amazed at how many of my classmates were taken in by "Capitalism and Freedom". But then again, I was one of the financially poorest students at the school and if I hadn't received a scholarship, I wouldn't have been able to attend.

[@cherryghost15]

That explains a lot! I've always wondered when the Boomers became so selfish.

[@5353Jumper]

The cold war was intentionally framed as Capitalism vs Communism instead of Democracy vs Dictatorship for this exact reason. To make the citizens of the US support the industrial elites over themselves. While also letting the government fall to corruption. If all the propaganda was Democracy vs Dictatorship, then we all would have been more focused on citizen involvement in politics and more willing to accept a broader mixed economy style with more social programs, nationalized industry, and regulations on industry.

[@SCHMALLZZZ]

​@@5353Jumper The USSR and its allies never claimed to have achieved communism, they were still in the transitional phase between capitalism and communism known as socialism in Marxist theory.

[@5353Jumper]

@@SCHMALLZZZ and they got closest during Gorbachev's term but really the Russian Oligarchy never really tried anything but Capitalism. They only used socialism/communism as an excuse to seize property and wealth from the citizens and give it to the oligarchy. Which is why the whole cold war Capitalism vs Communism rhetoric is total BS. Propaganda used by the elite of both sides to steal wealth and power from the citizens. The real war was supposed to the Democracy vs Dictatorship, and though the pro democracy side did have some initial success the last 3 decades have seen the Dictatorship side winning. We may lose the cold war soon of we cannot get our citizens to see through the BS.

[@FreddieVee]

@@SCHMALLZZZ Which never would have been realized. All Animals are equal except some are more equal.

[@henry1138]

2:20 “he won.” No he didn’t. The US healthcare system is a complicated mess of private and public enterprise and is the furthest thing from what Friedman recommended. Friedman wanted a system with transparent prices to reflect the actual scarcity of medical goods, which would bring costs way down. The problem with health insurance is it breaks the signals of prices by separating those who pay for the goods from those who need them. Friedman wanted to get rid of employee-provided health insurance so that prices would return to a competitive level, break up monopolies keeping resources artificially scarce, and end the monopoly the AMA has on physicians. All of these would work to promote competition and lower prices for consumers. Maybe this isn’t the right solution, but you exhibit no understanding of his actual policy recommendations. People like you are why Friedman’s legacy has been so tainted: individuals with no conception of economics try to approximate his positions within a political narrative.

[@kennethroyer9949]

100% Spot on...More Perfect Union is attempting to drive a square peg into a small hole in order to justify their political stance. I believe most of this is simply coming from their need to produce product (videos) to maintain traffic. This of course doesn't nullify responsible journalism as they have been caught red handed manipulating Friedman's work through the age old method of omission to which you elegantly stated regarding healthcare! IMO both sides have "used" Friedman either as cheerleader or whipping boy and yet both sides are NOT representing his ideas! If Friedman's ideas were actually put into place the cost structure for vast industries would dropped substantially and the middle class would flourish along with pulling the poor up substantially.

[@Tahoza]

Can we talk about the Chicago School more generally, its present actions, and the influence they still have over politics today?

[@sceinceguy]

How about the fact that is was founded by John D. Rockefeller, which is a major fact that gets glossed over.

[@wen6519]

This! These people have destroyed ecomonies in whole Latin America plus the US and we are all celebrating that university like its the mecca of progress for the poor.

[@coloradopeoplesnews7676]

@@sceinceguy And the major reason that those diabolical ideas get pushed and pushed well.

[@potatopotatow]

funny how the right uses the frankford school as their boogeyman and yet the chicago school exists and has done vastly more harm

[@ppacal1098]

Brothaman you need to comedyize your points and become a stand up comedian. Yes it would be high brow and many would miss the points, but a black man more than ANYONE else could reach the masses with financial humor.

[@Jane-oz7pp]

"Don't show I'm wearing crocs. Or do, maybe it makes me relatable i dunno" was big uncle energy 😂

[@morebirdsandroses]

I asked him not to mock the very shoes on my feet. 😢😂

[@AtlanticRim]

I disagree with almost every point put forward in this video, but it was put forward in such a respectable, calm, well-researched, and debate-worthy way that I can't help but be impressed. Good job to all involved!

[@sithman5000]

I'm sorry facts don't compute with you.

[@bloodwargaming3662]

I don't want to get offensive since you are respectfull but it's just facts that what this video was showing is facts. I don't know whether the solutions to the problems created by free liberal economics is correct but free liberal economics creats only problems

[@deadbeatboy]

I wish government cared about its people

[@krejados1]

Caring is neither here nor there. A government should be dutiful to its people. After all, one can care and still do nothing.

[@worldofdoom995]

No government ever cared about people only itself

[@JacquelineHoman]

That won't happen as long as those who vote are selfish and don't care about the less fortunate.

[@standowner6979]

Never gonna happen. That's why I want to introduce you to David graeber

[@carlosfuentes2485]

I think the ones who runs the government are the ones who hurt this nation the most overspending money that is not theirs without any consequences.

[@geoff5623]

I think it would be better to describe tax rates with a little more nuance - it seems all too common that people don't understand marginal tax rates, and how much money people are actually earning (and keeping) before their *additional* income is taxed at the top rate. Too many people are worried "if I reach the next tax bracket I will take home less money", or that the top tax bracket will affect them when they're only making a median income.

[@valeriebrown6079]

Some of us knew all the time. I taught anti-Friedman economics for nearly twenty years and am so delighted to have lived long enough to see a fight back and a return to Keynesian thinking.

[@Ancusohm]

FD Signifire always does great work. Thanks for this very informative video.

[@jamesmiller2129]

He did a video on Milton Friedman but didn't even know if he was alive??? Good research buddy.

[@QuestionsIAskMyself]

@@jamesmiller2129 guessing you don’t know figurative language. If you watched his other videos, he consistently jokingly disregards these people to counteract the perverted idolization often done when others talk about such figures like Milton Friedman

[@jamesmiller2129]

@@QuestionsIAskMyself your reply does not address my issue at all (lack of research before criticism)

[@chrisburk9424]

This Video BLOWS...

[@iroc]

Great video 🔥 Please do William F Buckley, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, or Larry Summers next!

[@TheVincentKyle]

Adding them all to my list of "The Worst People in the Modern World", thanks!

[@krejados1]

Don't forget Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh!

[@aabreu8576]

Thank God for Rush, what a Godsend to the American patriot​@@krejados1

[@desmondnyaho3061]

Milton Friedman was not a right winger, he was a libertarian. He argued for a limited government, freedom for people to decide their lot in life and advocated the need for a free market (which creates competition). He argued that the government are just people just like you and I equally working for their own interests. Therefore are not equipped to decide what is best for the people. And as for the race issue on income, he was one of the first to observe the negative impact the minimum wage had on the employment of young people, especially low skilled workers who were usually black youth. He said “the minimum wage was probably one of the most racist laws ever passed.” He also argued against welfare, and how it incentivized women to depend on the government for assistance thus eliminating the need for a father in the house, particularly poor black households experienced the major brunt of the negative effects of welfare, thus breaking the family. I’m happy this program introduced some of you to Milton Friedman for the first time, but I think we’ll all learn a lot from Friedman himself and his ideas. And when you’re done and would like to learn a lot more about race and black issues in America, the great Dr. Thomas Sowell gives a lot of context to the political climate in the country.

[@maxonmendel5757]

I think what gets missed is that the rich are people just like you also, who are fundamentally interested in enriching themselves. so this Reagan era myth that they would invest in the future turns out to be a lie, because giving the capitalist free money with no accountability is like giving a d*pehead fetnanyl. the rich are addicted to money and will do anything to see their number go bigger. just like you and me. And since they arent government agents, then they are not held accountable by the public. this is why we need UBI or some other way of getting American money back in the hands of the American people.

[@maxonmendel5757]

but yeah, Friedman and Sowell are definitely right-wingers.

[@desmondnyaho3061]

@@maxonmendel5757 Milton Friedman calls himself a libertarian and Thomas Sowell is a conservative. Both would lean to the right of political discourse. Does being a right winger mean they’re bad people?

[@maxonmendel5757]

@@desmondnyaho3061 not necessarily, but it does describe a bias that they have that needs to be accounted for. Sowell isn't correct about everything because of his conservative bias

[@ovidiucroitoru2290]

And not forget dr. Walter E. Williams.

[@FourtyParsecs]

Friedman makes sense when your view of economic is extremely narrow. But when you broaden your view, and understand that wverything is effecting everything else, and you learn about long-term, systemic effects of economies, Friedman's theories look like a child came up with them. The reason he's hailed as a great person is because he was ... for the people who own the networks that are hailing him as a great person.

[@daniel-panek]

They are very Libertarian and child-like thinking is a hallmark of Libertarianism

[@spacehobos4172]

explain how? I am curious about your criticism about his policies, also what system do you think is alternative to the free-market and limited government intervention?

[@FourtyParsecs]

@@spacehobos4172 Watch the video maybe? As for free markets, the point is to free capital not human beings. There is no evidence, after all this time, that freeing capital frees human beings. The evidence points to the opposite. Friedman blurred the two together. Actually, he blurred all types of freedoms together so he could sell the idea that freeing capital is how we free ourselves. This was pure fantasy. Are we freer today? Is the world better? Less wars? Everybody's getting so much money they don't know what to do with it? Of course not. Free markets systemically result in monopoly power, which increases the gap between the rich and the poor and leads to societal decay. This happens so often we just call it a "business cycle" now.

[@bonniegaither3994]

Never trust someone who is ALWAYS smiling.

[@OneAdam12Adam]

You mean Ronald Reagan?

[@donaldspaulding6973]

You can fool some of the people all of the time. PT Barnum.

[@markuspettersson1]

This is a serious miss characterization of Milton Freedman's ideas. Go look up Mr. Freedman your self and make your own opinion. The reason we have so many of the issues we have today, are because of Keynes ideas, of a central bank and government control. Freedman was for everyone's freedom, and the equal treatment of everyone. Rich or poor, black, white. Go study your self and make your own opinion.

[@VictheGeneral]

How do you justify America becoming arguably much worse after his ideas started being implemented? Freedom is just a word, a bird in a cage who's let out into the rest of the house would experience freedom but to the birds outside he's still in a cage. Freedom can be bad, that sounds wrong because we've been saying and hearing the word and associating it positively for so many years with things that are good, but it can be used against us. The government regulating things and providing safety nets is posited as being against freedom, how? So you want to be free to exploit people? You want people to become homeless and lose their own freedom because of something happening they can't control? Freedom is like faith, its intentionally vague and easily shiftable so you can use the term to mean anything you want to do, good or bad. When it comes to anyone involved in politics you have to evaluate the outcome of their ideas more than what they say. Because lying is a thing, and people are gullible.

[@atwertsdfgsdfaasdfa]

Fr it sounds stupid because this guy's characterization of his ideas is bullshit and phrased to sound as stupid as possible. It always comes back to white supremacy for this guy because that's the lens he sees everything through.

[@QT2809]

freedom to do what? freedom to die when you can’t afford medical care? freedom to sell your body into back-breaking labour so that your landlord can make a quick buck from your rent? the only freedom that chicago school economics gives is the freedom for business owners to exploit their workers without pushback. a very perverse definition of freedom to any sane person.

[@bloodwargaming3662]

Voddo economics termed by George hw bush . Is the only i thing I'd say

[@beej741]

I don’t know what to attribute it to but it’s really incredible that this country has only visibly gotten worse over the last 40 years due to a steady retreat of taxes, public investment and rising inequity and there are a ton of people who say the government is still too big and taxes too high. Like, you can win elections by telling people you’ll slash taxes and entitlements even as society falls apart around them. Truly mind boggling.

[@krejados1]

I'd venture a guess: poor educational standards and lack of critical thinking skills, also not taught in schools.

[@OceanusHelios]

You don't know what to attribute it to? Are you kidding? It is the usual suspects that run this as their platform.

[@brettmcclain9289]

The amount of money collected by the government, in relation to GDP, has not changed in 100 years.

[@drwalker9093]

@@brettmcclain9289 From CEIC Data, I find, "The US [tax revenue as a portion of GDP] data reached an all-time high of 19.5 % in 2000 and a record low of 13.7 % in 2009." That's a nearly 30% drop in 9 years. But it's also beside the point about public investment and inequity - taxes collected have increasingly been spent in ways that benefit the already-rich, decreasingly been spent on infrastructure and public goods and services. Taxes collected have increasingly been taken from those with lower incomes, and we all know who got the tax cuts. But, to return to my first point: You're wrong.

[@unbiasedunbothered9270]

​@@drwalker9093I just have to say that the top 1% paid 723 billion in taxes and the bottom 90 paid 450 billion. The top 50% of tax payers paid 97.7% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 50 paid 2.3%. Not saying I disagree with you overall but I am saying the data doesn't necessarily support that.

[@scpatl4now]

I call Milton Friedman Wrong. Proven wrong by examples we have today.

[@WanderingExistence]

I call Milton Friedman Evil... Sometimes I even go as far as to say, he's a _Real Jerk!_

[@vikitheviki]

I call Milton Friedman a SOB..

[@danglendenning5349]

Milton Friedman, more like milking unfree men.

[@vectorhacker-r2]

Please enlighten us as to how he's wrong exactly.

[@scpatl4now]

@@vectorhacker-r2 I have a better idea...since you are questioning, why don't you tell us why you think he is right.

[@williamholder2020]

There is a second part that shows how excessive government spending creates inflation and in turn it makes your money worthless. Businesses were not paying 90 percent. Alot of fdr high taxes were offset but Business lobbyists made sure that got a tax break.

[@Smithistory]

Most people don't research past the talking points. No one paid 90%, there were plenty of tax loopholes, but again no one wants to learn the actual history when it would go against their narrative.

[@frequentlycynical642]

Most of those alleged high taxes were incremental and top bracket. Hardly anyone ever seems to notice this.

[@bloodwargaming3662]

Fact his policy got incomes rising and low inequality and a strong middle class . You can't change that fact

[@EvilHamsterbot]

So happy to see this King here 👏

[@tomfurstyfield]

FD is such a good host

[@luisbaltasar6238]

This vídeo just made a bigger friedman fan😂

[@bcbeasters]

...because you defend the super-rich for FREE like every other good little follower of Fox News! 🙂👍

[@GHAITIsmail]

Me too

[@QT2809]

you’re in a cult

[@elihan9]

It seems that economists are treated as high priests, and the economy is God. If true, that is horrifying. It allows the powerful to grant their horrendous acts as "the market's will," i.e., "God's will." All these decisions, human decisions, are granted as divine and shouldn't be questioned.

[@timtebone1843]

They are ideologs lol

[@elizabethdavis1696]

Worship of wealth and punishment of poverty

[@elihan9]

@@elizabethdavis1696 And we know what needs to be done with religious fanatics,

[@QT2809]

once you realise that the free market doesn’t exist, and that market forces are just the decisions made by business owners and executives, the line between a ‘free market’ and a planned economy becomes increasingly blurred. only in this case, the economy is planned to make as much money as possible for the 1%.

[@philipward6300]

Milton Friedman also broke the American Education system. All of the states that have introduced vouchers, and greatly expanded them recently, come from Friedman's school choice philosophy. Over 90% of kids in Indiana go to public schools, but the voucher system received roughly 70% of the new education monies in the last budget. Public schools funds will not even negate the effects of inflation.

[@henry1138]

This was the intended effect of the voucher system - you’ve provided no evidence that this destroyed the education system. Are kids better off or worse off after the policy? Saying that money went from public schools to private schools is meaningless because that was the whole point of the program: that is, money should be directed from schools that underperform (public schools) to those that parents think will provide a better service to their kids. If anything, that funds have flowed out of public schools in Indiana is evidence of how dissatisfied parents have been with the public schools.

[@lunayen]

​@@henry1138 But public schools will in turn continue to underperform due to lack of resources; resources that private schools don't particularly need. If anything, it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy of those who just wanted to see public school fail.

[@henry1138]

@@lunayen Your comment assumes that it’s a lack of resources that caused public schools to underperform in the first place. Expenditures are not correlated with school quality. Take the case of St. Louis, where inner city schools enjoy some of the highest per capita spending in the state, but they consistently perform poorly and only recently were accredited by the state. Friedman’s perspective was that school quality cannot be explained by high expenditures, but rather by some measure of accountability by the school to its “consumers.” Though it might be hard to stomach the word “consumers” when referring to students and parents, the intuition still holds: a public school administration that does not have to be accountable to parents and has a monopoly over a certain district does not have the same incentives to satisfy these consumers. Maybe the solution isn’t privatization, but my original point was that OP’s comment misses the entire motivation behind voucher programs.

[@timothyjackson4653]

When it comes to inflation Friedman also reminded us that it comes only from DC. Stop printing and you stop inflation. It’s that simple

[@Trynatostayalive1234]

@@henry1138so what’s the solution. In two sentences please

[@L_i_g_h_t]

Really helpful explanation of how we got here. Thanks, FD & MPU.

[@Busto]

Exposing the bankrupt ideas behind Friedmanism is one of the topics of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine

[@krejados1]

Amazing book, that one!

[@Busto]

@@krejados1 The post-Katrina stuff read like a conspiracy thriller. Then you remember that it's real.....Fffffuuuck!

[@mitchpattimusic]

Fantastic book. Her chapter breaking down Friedman and the Chicago Boys is probably the best summary and analysis of them. Required reading for anyone interested in the subject.

[@Busto]

@@mitchpattimusic I'd be interested to know if this is required reading in any economics class

[@mitchpattimusic]

@@Busto I went to undergrad and grad for school for Political Science and never saw it, or anything like it, assigned in that field, and I took a lot of courses related to political economy. However, I did have to read a very annoying amount of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and several libertarian cranks at both levels of education.

[@GnarlyRaePepsi]

During the point in which I thought I was going to get a degree in Accounting and become a CPA, I took Econ 1A. A lot of the topics we covered were new to me as I had dropped out of high school as soon as I got my license (I was a second year freshman despite consistently getting 1st place in any writing competition I entered/scored very high on PSATs that I took in order to qualify for a summer program at UC Irvine when I was 15, and just absolutely hated high school). I remember being infuriated when my instructor tried to convince us that sweatshops were good for the economies they operated within. At the time I lived in an Anarchist commune in the industrial part of town and smelled like garbage. This video reminded me of that, don’t really have anything impactful to say. If you read this far, have a great day.

[@rychei5393]

Ya, My Econ teacher LOVED Walmart; I said they were destroying small businesses. We were in a rural area that really needed a reliable store, and Walmart provided jobs ... his response was "Isn't it great?". I cringed. I knew the many small businesses that went bust because of Walmart, and the lack of variety in things I could buy as a result. It just made me fume.

[@winninglifeyo]

@@rychei5393 I got kicked out of most of my ecom classes for openly debating the neoliberal scumbag professors. They always started the term saying how they expected full blown discourse and it’s ok to disagree even with him. They had had huge egos and loved wowing the 18-22 yrs old & shaping their minds. Basically “owning” the kids. I was 26 & couldn’t be shaped & already had one successful business I turned into a workers co-op when I left the biz. They hated that they were getting owned and had no rebuttals for me & I basically embarrassed them in front of the class. So they just kick me out. It was so much fun

[@jedlicka1227]

Instead of being infuriated, (or agreeing with your professor and promoting sweatshops), why not visit a third world country and ask the people employed there what they think about sweat shops? Things are not black and white.

[@rychei5393]

@@jedlicka1227 Well I saw the damage IN MY OWN COUNTRY, so I really didn't need to go see people in sweat shops (that also happens in THIS country, btw.) The mono culture of stores has quite literally limited selection options, brought to us by monopolistic mega businesses like Walmart.

[@JonKrueger]

Paul Krugman, "Inflation is transitory." I take Milton Friedman more seriously than transitory inflation economists.

[@markus-o9n]

"transitory inflation economists" are not a thing. Also, Krugman is not a great economist. He's just "neoliberal lite".

[@JonKrueger]

@markus-o9n If Mr. Transitory Inflation Economist is too long, then a person can shorten it to Mr. Transitory. 😀

[@GG.Sanchoo]

@@markus-o9nhe’s a Keynesian (gross)

[@donaldspaulding6973]

Krugman is a shill and I have no respect for him.

[@bloodwargaming3662]

Ah yeah how great america is thanks to Regan

[@bevindenson]

Trickle down economics is such a childish take on economic policy lmfao. I remember my dad preaching to me about it as a kid, but it never works in practice.

[@worldofdoom995]

Trickle down economic is a socialist dogwhistle

[@Pool_Inspector]

Cause it wasn't a real theory in the first place. Reagan made it up.

[@adamantineking3766]

Trickle down economics doesn't exist, it's a made up term by leftist who just hated Regan and misquoted what he actually meant.

[@juanshaftpatel7488]

i guess you loss the game

[@roughhabit9085]

Who coined the phrase? Press agents for big government? Anyhow Reagan advocated more capitalism less socialism. “Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program “ ~ Milton Friedman I think he might agree with DOGE however. A demagoguery of the left have convinced people that the government will take care of their lives for them . This needs to end .

[@jessehughes8274]

Love this one from FD and More Perfect Union. As an economics student, I thought there might have been one or two confusions. I'm very much a Keynesian, but being a Keynesian can allow for a natural unemployment rate. If you like people being able to switch jobs and think that sometimes it takes a few weeks between quitting and getting hired again, then you agree that there is a good basis for a small proportion of unemployed people. I think we want to keep the rate of people who can't find employment as low as possible. Interestingly, unemployment rate is all about people who are STILL LOOKING for jobs as well. People left behind by the system who no longer apply for jobs no longer show up in the unemployment rate. This seems to be a major blind spot of contemporary political discussions of economics and maybe a better punching bag than a natural unemployment rate existing: the people who cannot find employment or who are underemployed. Here's hoping that this crisis can cause some positive changes, just like was said. Thanks for getting the word out to both KZbinrs involved!

[@Owesomasaurus]

In the past full employment policies were designed to achieve just the outcome you describe - as low an unemployment rate as possible. I'm not aware of a country that pursued full employment in a Keynesian sense that reached zero unemployment. The difference is that contemporary governments use unemployment rates to depress wages. I think its important to structure policy to encourage work for all those who want and are able to work; accepting a natural unemployment rate tho leads to complacency and wage suppression.

[@jessehughes8274]

@@Owesomasaurus Cool thoughts, I see that.

[@juanshaftpatel7488]

youre gonna lose the game@@jessehughes8274

[@brodeize]

The point of the video is non-existing just like "trickle down" economy. That myth will never die.

[@gordion1]

Trickle down is tears of the victims.

[@MrQuantumInc]

He kept talking about his poor working class parents and yet pushed ideas that would harm people like that, implying he was either delusional, demented, or for some reason really resented all of the other poor people. "I got out via my own hard work! (Because I am special.) Only hard workers deserve non-poverty! (If everyone gets it then I am not special.)" Actually I have no idea what he was really thinking, and it not really important but it is ironic.

[@morebirdsandroses]

I noticed that too. Either he was gloating or uniquely clueless. ??

[@matiaslobosrojas7285]

He was sincere, chile has better standart of living that almost all countrys in latinomerica. There are arguments against a pro, monetarism stop calling diferent position demencial

[@robfromvan]

@@priyapepsiyes

[@robfromvan]

He was a student of economics and anyone who studies it in detail always comes to the same conclusions he did. The policies he advocates raises the OVERALL standard of living. The policies he’s against helps raise the standard of living of a small group of individuals at the expense of a larger group of individuals. Protectionism, unions, minimum wages, rent controls all help a smaller group of people at the expense of a much larger group of people, reducing the OVERALL standard of living and so keep countries perpetually poor, as you see in South America and Africa where socialism and heavy regulation are rampant. In countries like Chile, Botswana, and South Korea which follow opposite policies, you can see that free trade, less unions, and no price controls ( min wages, rent controls) OVERALL produce a higher standard of living as these policies help the masses on a large scale at the expense of much smaller groups of people.

[@jacobcastro8026]

I'm gonna remember this names so when I go to hell I can start crossing them off my hit list.

[@Mephistoph612]

I'm glad FD has signed on. I love his thought pieces and the collab is amazing.

[@bballguy180]

This was a great video!!! Thanks FDsignifire!

[@nk-gp1ml]

Milton Friedman gave intellectual (I use that word very loosely with this individual) credibility to a money and power grab by the wealthiest individuals and corporations. He was either thick or duplicitous as wealth inequality has since become obscene and the threat to capitalism and democracy of his ideas was obvious even to myself in my early 20s during the Reagan and Thatcher governments.

[@jackmonaghan8477]

Friedman didn't care for the consequences, just as long as he got to keep his mountain of moolah from the misery his economic illiteracy forced upon the world.

[@ret2pop]

he also made important contributions to macroeconomics research. I don't agree with friedman, but before you just assume that the opposite side must be dumb, you should probably look at how he contributed to his own field. The very fact that he had a Phd and you probably do not does not automatically mean he is correct but you should do your research much more carefully before putting something on the internet. The governments you were talking about existed after or during a time of rampant stagflation where no pre-existing economic models had explained this, where his supposedly did.

[@nk-gp1ml]

@@ret2pop the end of your last sentence says it perfectly: ‘supposedly did’. Nothing you say changes my original comment that his thinking has resulted in massive wealth inequalities leading to worsening power imbalances between the majority and the wealthiest sections of society and corporations. We are seeing the effects of that today and it will end badly for democracy and society. It did not take a genius to foresee the outcome of his economic model and I’m certain he knew it as well.

[@ret2pop]

@@nk-gp1ml there's no reason why deregulation must imply wealth inequality; the whole point of economics is to actually demonstrate that empirically instead of just thinking about it, which is definitely not for the general public to do. Furthermore, another question is about one's values. I'm sure he would have said that even if it caused wealth inequality, it doesn't matter, as long as everyone is better off (the rising tides raise all boats effect). Also, at the time, it really did seem like his economic model was the only one that worked, due to neokeynesian theory breaking down during stagflation. There are videos where you can actually listen to him talk, as well as a wikipedia page for him. He's very much well spoken and some of his contributions to economics still are a part of neoclassical theory today. In the modern day we have different problems and so economists have adapted to solving these new challenges.

[@JonathanSmith-kz2jo]

0:48 - and everyone else. I can prove this because wage growth was on a downwards trend before 1980 but then picked up and increased afterwards. Why should that be possible if these economic reforms were ruining the economy? 0:58 - attributing the behaviour of every president since Reagan to Friedman is absurd, given that all of them have done nothing but spend a ton, drive up debt, and increase the size of government. These are all things which Milton Friedman was against. 2:20 - if you disapprove I understand, but you haven’t backed up why you seemingly disapprove (as your mannerisms seem to have indicated). It is a fact that when you reduce the supply of something, the price of it and anything directly associated goes up. This is what imprudent licensing such as that imposed on doctors does. The organisation responsible for this licensing profits off their government-given privilege to effectively restrict the supply of doctors who are allowed to practice their craft. I myself find licensing unnecessary given that everything that doctors have gone through, in addition to the insane risk that their work Carries, is what I believe to be more than enough to encourage them to practice their craft as safely and as effectively as possible. In short, it makes no sense to see Friedman’s proposal as “letting the free market decide whether you live or die” when it is the medical licence organisation - which Friedman called out - which is doing just that: deciding if you live or die it’s contribution to exorbitant healthcare prices. 3:34 - on what basis is that necessarily amazing? With wealth, what matters are measurements in absolute terms, not percentage terms. This statement is true insofar as the amount of wealth in an economy remains unfixed. Also, wealth inequality is not necessarily a bad thing; it makes sense that people who succeed are going to build a lot of wealth and others who are unsuccessful, won’t. This “inequality” is also presented as something static, which it isn’t, given that over 53% of Americans are likely to enter the top 10% level at once in their life, with those wealth levels becoming an increasingly revolving door the more you go up the percentiles. Also, the period of great prosperity that you speak of is greatly overstated. The debt level was climbing; minority unemployment rose higher and higher (black unemployment doubling from what it was in 1934 by 1956); and the extent of protectionism was allowing for the survival of inefficient industries which meant that consumers had to unnecessarily endure lower quality and more expensive goods and services. This is not to mention the inflation fiasco which you seem to have quickly dismissed, despite it being quite a poignant reminder that Keynesian economics does not work. 4:11 - interesting that you say this. If increased taxes on the rich is the reason for that period’s bout of prosperity (which I already have explained is greatly overstated), why is it that throughout all of the changes in the top marginal rate of tax, tax revenues per annum have barely changed and stayed on its flat trend line? Also a little side note, low taxes on the rich was not a cause of poverty in the gilded age, because the gilded age was actually the period in America which saw the greatest rate of people exiting poverty, and the greatest rate of real income increases, and the greatest rate of increase in home ownership; all leading to the creation of the middle class of America. 5:38 - thank you for the music. As a side-note to my general critique of the video, it’s always nice to see people making an effort to get people engaged in learning about economics, even if I might disagree with it. 7:34 - I have a lot to cover so bear with me. First, the fundamental flaw of Keynesian economics is Keynes’s rejection of a false version of what he thought was Say’s Law, or the law of markets. This theory stipulates that in order to demand goods, you must first supply goods. Keynes thought that you could just create demand out of thin air and that everything would be fine by getting money into people’s pockets; this is only half true. While being able to get free money to spend on things may sound conducive to spurring the economy, it doesn’t actually make a lot of sense when you realise that more people having money does not mean more goods and services are created for people to enjoy. This is why every single time there has been a stimulus measure, inflation resulted not that long after, because general increases in the price level is, by definition, possible only when money supply growth outpaces economic growth. Moreover, such spending is facilitated by borrowing, which itself crowds out public investment by causing interest rates to rise, which constrains the future production of goods, services and jobs. Moreover, those public projects were not the panacea that many people think they were, because they caused a misallocation of labour and capital to projects that were only there for the sake of justifying payments by government to people who helped with those projects. Because of those projects, small businesses closed up shop because they couldn’t grab any of that labour, thus it only masked unemployment; as soon as all those projects were done, people had to fund work elsewhere; it didn’t result in any long term job creation - it was great, however, at prolonging the depression by misallocating resources under the guise of helping people. As a final point, why do you say that Friedman’s idea was stupid despite not giving any supporting evidence? That’s fine, because I have evidence the refutes your claim, that evidence being the aforementioned gains made by all Americans during the gilded age and by citizens of the United Kingdom during the Industrial Revolution. Despite considerable environmental damage and child labour activity, living standards rose sharply during those times, which were characterised by small government (US public spending was less than 3% of its national product - less than 10% for that of Great Britain); and minimal regulation. These periods should not have gone as they did if Friedman’s proposals were actually erroneous. 8:35 - Milton Friedman was heavily against authoritarianism, he sought to increase economic freedom as a realistic way to give power back to the people while flying under the radar of dictatorial paranoia (it’s more palatable for a dictator to allow those he rules to freely open businesses than it is to legalise protesting); he additionally rejects two honorary degrees offered to him by Chilean universities which aid close ties to Pinochet. Additionally, the only advising he did was on purely economic topics, he wasn’t advising Pinochet on how to better torture dissidents. Furthermore, these “extreme neoliberal policies” that you speak of don’t seem so bad if you consider that Chile has had extremely good economic outcomes in the decades following, relative to any other Latin American country. 9:30 - at no point has Milton Friedman ever claimed that trade unions caused inflation. One of his most famous lectures began with him refuting the notion, by showing many countries’s inflation and money supply growth rates side by side, where he explains that trade unions do not cause inflation, because if they did, those trend lines should not be seen so close together. They are indeed shown to be very close together, and this observation is even more prevalent in countries which have suffered from the effects of money printing, such as Brazil and Argentina (Argentina’s inflation growth was not shown because the lecture hall’s roof was not high enough to show it off). 11:00 - attributing all of Reagan’s policies to Milton Friedman is absurd. Yes, Friedman was against social welfare, but he believe in replacing it with a negative income tax regime which would put money into the pockets of the poor while creating an incentive for them to work their way out of needing welfare.

[@TheVincentKyle]

I really hope Friedman, Reagan, Atwater, Falwell, Welch and Powell are "enjoying" Hell. Save a hot seat for Kissinger.

[@OneAdam12Adam]

We can only hope.

[@worldofdoom995]

Why would they? Did they abort 2 million babies every year?

[@lucasfisher863]

I can’t speak to the other figures but the only way you can hate Friedman is to misunderstand him, none of what was portrayed in this video was close to what Friedman actual said much less believed.

[@TheVincentKyle]

@@lucasfisher863 Thanks friend, but I hate Friedman for Friedman's own words and deeds.

[@roughhabit9085]

“ A man’s admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for people around him “ ~ Alexis De Tocqueville

[@eakherenow]

"Just keepen it a buck" and absolutely true - we have had the same president since 1982.

[@ericroyer5888]

I was going to turn the video off, then the crocs showed up. Now I'm invested.

[@mattster-nw2xn]

One of my cherished moments in academia was referring to Milton as a crackpot in one of my papers.

[@rishabhanand4973]

hell yeah. though honestly, it's a bit insulting to the crackpots

[@morebirdsandroses]

You did us a service too. 😅

[@DrinkWater713]

You must not be an Economist then. Friedman might have been wrong about many things, and the implementation of some of his ideas clearly didn't work, but he was extremely intelligent and made significant contributions to the field.

[@bloodwargaming3662]

​@@DrinkWater713look iam not going to say that he was totally bad but as it goes what may look good on paper may not be good in practice. His economics didn't benefit even the whites the most privileged during the 60's -70's .

[@DrinkWater713]

@@bloodwargaming3662 Economics don't benefit anyone. It endeavors to understand how the world works, how people make choices. The implementation of policies guided by KNOWLEDGE of Economics has greater potential to help people. That's all. Friedman's contributions to the field are of a factual nature. Calling him a crackpot economist is an insane statement completely out of touch with anyone who has a basic understanding of economics.

[@rodb66]

When I was in high school, Reagan was on his first term and we knew then that he was not for us. In the mid to late 2000s, I would occasionally listen to talk radio. It was no surprise that some of those far right people held him as one of the greatest presidents of the United States.

[@koltoncrane3099]

You do realize Obama was considered far left but basically did what Reagan did. Heck if jfk was alive today he’d be considered far right republican and if Nixon was alive today he’d be considered far left doing price controls. Like literally the terms far right is way over used. JFK was far right but was a democrat in his day.

[@felipelopes7976]

If you knew Milton Friedman main proposals like negative income tax, end of minimum wage and sound monetary policy, than you would agree those reforms would eliminate poverty

[@daiichidoku]

first thing i thought of when saw this video was MF negative income tax.

[@koltoncrane3099]

They’ve never listened to Milton Friedman. If they did you’d know he wanted the fda and dea abolished. Like he wanted all drugs legalized. Here an African American is hating on Milton Friedman when it’s Milton Friedman that literally advocated for millions of blacks to be freed from prison with all drugs being legal. He’ll Milton Friedman did more for the black cause then the blm did. Sadly the blm said defund the police when they should have been quoting Milton Friedman and arguing to legalize all drugs.

[@consigliereparlamentare5649]

Facts

[@bodyfatfocus]

Wrong!!! Milton Friedman advocated for free-enterprise =capitalism. What is being applied in America is the economic ideology of John Maynard Keynes =socialism.

[@fmcg5364]

Poverty is part of the human condition been around longer than the world's oldest profession. I looked up Milton Freidman and his negative income tax that people who are above some line pay taxes and then the people under this line get money from the government and spend it as they see fit. Sounds like a fight waiting to happen because to paraphrase Sen. Grassley Americans don't want people spending money on liquor, women and movies. Friedman explained the percentages of people working for minimum wages are based on the economy from 1960s and 1970s when teenagers were mostly affected by minimum wage. He said like 20% of head of households were minimum wage, that is no longer true. This just sounds his similar "trickle down" theory and I have been waiting 40 years for that. No thanks, its pie in the sky.

[@Tlacaelel1124]

For real, people really think the economic policies of Obama are different from Reagan.

[@OceanusHelios]

New boss same as the old boss. But you have to remember who the lawmakers were at the time. Laws were being fillibustered do you remember that? The president does run the administration and the three letter agencies but laws need to be written and passed. Remember what those proposed laws were? Oh yeah...health care for everybody. Who stalled it? Oh yeah the career republicans that are still there today. Remember any of that at all?

[@Tlacaelel1124]

@@OceanusHelios Obama increased military spending over his tenure-Reagan would have done the same. Obama bailed out the banks and the not the people during the recession-Reagan would have done the same. Obama settled for subsidies with a private health care system-Reagan would have done the same. Obama cut food stamps benefit, do you really need to be reminded about Reagan’s position/actual actions on this issue? They are the same, take the current President’s words as proof because he said it himself “Nothing will fundamentally change”.

[@danielnutter2655]

@@Tlacaelel1124 When the Republicans embraced theocracy and racism with their southern strategy the plutocrats that left as a result ended up Democrats. After the Republican party gutted the traditional democracts for a few decades these plutocrats ended up in charge. Now both parties are run by plutocrats who primarily differ on social/cultural issues.

[@peacefulpotato1836]

@@Tlacaelel1124Milton Friedman advocated for not bailing out the banks

[@Tlacaelel1124]

@@peacefulpotato1836 That’s why Reagan listened to Bankers and Wall Street-not some economic intellectual that actually had principles. Flawed in my opinion but he could defend it.

[@icoleman007]

Someone inform Ben Shitpero that exploiting cheap labor, tax evading, receiving tax breaks & subsidies is not "saving" money

[@OceanusHelios]

Somebody inform him that he should get a ticket to Russia and be more honest.

[@haydenlee8332]

oh unfortunately, pretty much all conservatives think that actually is saving money

[@mr.sniffly5297]

The fact that you misspelled his name even outside of the “shit” part is killing me 😂

[@koltoncrane3099]

On the face of it the last 50 years all politicians have pushed for globalization. Obama himself pushed for employing cheap Chinese rather than being like Trump who fought to increase tariffs or bring jobs back to the U.S. Trump did things bad but he actually tried something different. But most economists will say ya offshoring and employing millions of Chinese workers was deflationary. It let the bush and Obama etc print money and Chinese bought the debt and it was deflationary employing cheap Chinese. It destroyed rural America but it made cheaper tvs etc.

[@SJhikes]

For 6 decades we’ve been moving against most things Friedman advocated for lol. We’ve had perpetually increasing government spending, perpetually waning individual liberty, increased government intervention in the marketplace (at least 32 protectionist trade policies in effect today), and as far as Keynesian policy how about m1 in March 2020: 4 trillion, m1 march 2022: 20.6 trillion. Not very monetarist!

[@antgrantrant]

I'm loving these fd narrated episodes. I'm pretty sure his last episode inspired the behind the bastards episode on welche

[@zlpatriot11]

Him and Second Thought are awesome!

[@hezigler]

Love that you gave Bernie the last word.

[@growthandunderstanding]

OUTSTANDING VIDEO! THANK YOU FOR EDUCATING THE PUBLIC!

[@dakinayantv3245]

Friedmanism actually guarantees the "freedom" to starve.

[@worldofdoom995]

No thats marx

[@ktheterkuceder6825]

​@@worldofdoom995Actions vs ideas. The former goes to Friedman.

[@rickysanders6487]

Friedman advocated for a negative income tax (a form of basic income for people below a certain upper tax bracket). Friedman's policies would have PREVENTED people from starving. We live in the 21st century, look shit up BEFORE you pull nonsense out of your ass!

[@jeffgifkins7684]

Capitalism has lead to a significant drop in hunger worldwide. Maybe the dumbest comment of all.

[@hehmda]

@@jeffgifkins7684 sure. Friedmanism didn't tho since hunger rate started rising again recently.

[@lukesills4939]

Amazing video! The one big question I was left with was how else we might explain the crisis of "stagflation" which Friedman and the Chicago School thinkers latched onto.

[@TheBoogerJames]

Mainstream economics erroneously views inflation and unemployment as being in opposition. Stagflation is the term they invented when they couldn't explain why there were both. Monetarists like to ignore external economic factors like oil embargoes and blame everything on the money supply. Instead of changing their theories to accommodate the real world, they just make up exceptions. The Chicago school teaches dogma, not science.

[@christienayers1789]

I think his point was that Friedman and the Chicago School correctly predicted stagflation, but used it to promote their neoliberal economic policy.

[@joeymac4302]

in my economics class, we discussed the different "shocks" which influence inflation, and in the case of stagflation, it was a confluence of automation displacing workers in the 70's, coupled with massive increases in input costs, namely oil prices, due to OPEC influencing supply. Stagflation wasn't a natural part of the business cycle, but was influenced by cartel coordination which impacted the market. That's my take on it.

[@DrinkWater713]

​@@joeymac4302why would automation have caused it? Should be the opposite. More production should boost economic growth and less jobs should lower prices

[@joeymac4302]

@@DrinkWater713 automation boosted productivity, which lowered prices, and also reduced total need for jobs. Short version is that it doesn't matter that products become slightly cheaper to produce if you don't have the wages to afford the product. The problem is that you are looking at it from a human perspective where productivity increases are a net benefit, rather than a business perspective, whereby automation makes workers input less valuable, meaning they lose wage leverage. automation was great for consumers, who had to pay less. It was also great from business owners, who had to hire less people and sold more products. But it was terrible for the average worker, given that it greatly undermined their value. Which would not be a problem if viewed from a non-capitalist perspective. Increased production should be a good thing, but in practice, humans are too crummy for it to actually work out, lol.

[@gordonadams5891]

I am so glad you are addressing this man! I never understood why he was so influential when his thinking is so flawed.

[@lancevoltron3585]

Love all the awesome guests you've been having. I've heard Milton Friedman's name, but didn't know much about him. Appreciate this.

[@usx06240]

You still don't if you believe this crap.

[@bicualexandru246]

I would much rather recommend you listen to a few of his lectures or if you want something a bit more relaxed than a one hour lecture there were a few videos of Milton Friendman on Donahue and they are quite good. I know it's probably hard to have people rag on this creator that you probably watch and are intersted in but the man has zero understanding of what he is talking about in this video. That was clear from the first 5 seconds when he said that Obama or Bush had any possible connection to the notion of libertarianism or economic freedom.

[@sesaarinen]

​@@bicualexandru246 Exactly. Also it seems that this guy's economic and/or historic comprehension is pretty slim.

[@ryanlazarus3381]

The US hasn’t had the same president since 1982, we’ve really had the same president since 1964. Milton Friedman’s rhetoric was adopted by Reagan and others, but none of them actually adopted his policies. Milton Friedman wanted low taxes (Reagan’s effective tax rates on the rich remained roughly the same as past decades before him. People keep confusing headline rates with effective rates. Headline rates are meaningless). Friedman wanted balanced budgets (Reagan was the biggest spender since FDR. He tripled the national debt in 8 years despite having a higher tax revenue to GDP ratio than the recent presidents that proceeded him). Friedman wanted less regulations and free trade (Reagan increased net regulations by the end of his reign and was a protectionist). Friedman advocated for the “negative income tax” which is similar to universal basic income. It would simplify the welfare system while getting rid of the poverty trap. The current welfare system discourages people from seeking work. NIT encourages people to work while having their basic needs met. (Reagan and everyone after him have rejected NIT) Thatcher was similar in that she adopted Friedman’s rhetoric but didn’t actually adopt supply-side economics. The argument for supply-side economics isn’t to cut taxes on the rich. It’s to cut taxes for everyone, especially the working/middle class. Effective rates on the rich have only gone down if you are looking at capital gains and not ordinary income. With those lower rates, they are still generating more revenue as a percentage of GDP when rates were higher. The rich save and invest most of their wealth, meaning that money is used for more productive means, which generates more tax revenue. If you raise effective rates substantially higher, the rich will flee and you’ll get a lot less tax revenue, plus you lose their savings, investment, and charitable dollars. Keep rates the same on the rich, eliminate taxes or at least significantly reduce the taxes on the working/middle class. Get rid of regulations designed to protect big business and not protect consumers. Affordable healthcare and housing has been made illegal by the government. Friedman was an early advocate for school choice. K-12 has plenty of funding, including in the poorest neighborhoods of cities (they get a ton of state and federal funding. The worst neighborhoods often get twice as much per pupil spending than rich suburbs). Let students and their parents choose a school that fits their needs while keeping spending the same. School Choice holds bad public schools accountable. Good public schools will continue to be chosen and their methods replicated. Bad public schools outside of school choice are currently encouraged to fail because they get bigger budgets every time they fail. Money has never been the issue. Abolish government-guaranteed student loans and college tuition will plummet back to its previously affordable levels. College students at quality state universities used to be able to work during the summer to pay off their tuition. No one will lend to a college student without that government guarantee and without those loans, colleges can’t charge more than what people can afford. - F.D is also spreading lies about Friedman and the “Chicago Boys”. Pinochet never adopted anything resembling laissez-faire capitalism but simply ended Allende’s Marxist policies. Friedman opposed Pinochet’s authoritarianism. Pinochet adopted slightly more capitalistic markets and turned Chile into the most robust economy in Latin America. That doesn’t excuse his executions of dissidents. We should simply be accurate about the reality of the economic system while condemning political violence.

[@kshitizmishra5154]

Thanks for posting this.

[@zenboy1612]

America has invaded countries and toppled governments how about we talk about that political violence

[@jzbass72]

Succinct and accurate. I wish this had more likes.

[@ryanlazarus3381]

@@jzbass72 🙏

[@jzbass72]

@@ryanlazarus3381, I enjoy this channel and F.D. is obviously intelligent but yes, the Chile narrative here is almost shockingly inaccurate and reductive. Friedman did the miraculous: he started Pinochet’s demise not only without firing a single shot, but also with Pinochet’s approval.

[@bg5215]

Keep watching and listening to Milton Freedman and if you have a brain you'll eventually realize he was right.

[@cg5648]

That would take effort.

[@kenlutter2065]

Not if you're part of the middle class.

[@pplr1]

Or you'll fall into a daze like a cultist.

[@thelastmohicaneagleeye6581]

milton friedman was a complete moron

[@CaseNumber00]

It always goes back to Regan. He is the commutation of all the pro business policies before and the pivot point in history. There's the positive times before Regan and the bad economic times, now, after Regan. Most of the videos on this channel mention Regan at some point in the video. You should cover him how gathered all these people's bad ideas and changed the US leading to now.

[@KaiHenningsen]

Let me just point out that the "Nobel prize for economics" isn't. It's the _Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel_ - a prize that a bank set up, *not* one of the prizes Alfred Nobel set up, even though old Alfred was definitely one of the rich. That's kind of relevant here. You see, Alfred's prizes are awarded to "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind." (Kind of a mic drop moment here.)

[@SarahLaSpisa]

I just found you and I love it! I so enjoy the information and your personality

[@sandollor]

The second person I'm visiting once a time machine is invented: Milton Friedman.

[@mr.sniffly5297]

Who’s first?

[@koltoncrane3099]

They’ve never listened to Milton Friedman. If they did you’d know he wanted the fda and dea abolished. Like he wanted all drugs legalized. Here an African American is hating on Milton Friedman when it’s Milton Friedman that literally advocated for millions of blacks to be freed from prison with all drugs being legal. He’ll Milton Friedman did more for the black cause then the blm did. Sadly the blm said defund the police when they should have been quoting Milton Friedman and arguing to legalize all drugs.

[@fmcg5364]

Why?

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

This video is great except for the perpetuation of the misconception of a "middle class". From an economic standpoint the distinction between classes that aids analysis the most is that of ownership -- you either own the means of production or you don't. Few people do. This world is 99.99% workers & 0.01% owners. Those are the two classes: those who rule & those who are ruled.

[@timtebone1843]

Owning your home is a thing too.. Having savings is also a thing..

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

@@timtebone1843that's not ownership of production. It's not the same thing. Ownership of production is having _legal copyright & ownership_ of the machinery, infrastructure, & facilities involved in performing labor. When you "own" your house the bank actually owns until you "pay it off", but after that the state still "owns" it & you pay property taxes until you die. You never "own" anything in the same sense that the capitalist/bourgeoisie class own things. This is the distinction between property & possessions, my friend. They are not the same thing. Property usually isn't something physically mobile that can be moved, but ownership of it can be transferred. Possessions can be carried in your pocket, on your person, or even stored within your property such as a car or a house you "own" via mortgage payments. Despite your ownership of that property it is usury, a specific type of debt. Again, it is a *very* small minority within a minority of folks on this planet who own the means of production, which is what drives all labor & through socio-economic organization drives society as a result.

[@michaelvickers4437]

I think there is still a useful distinction to be drawn within "workers" between those who historically had little agency and little security, and for the brief period between 1945 and 1980, when a significant subset of workers (almost exclusively White, and most beneficially, men) were able to achieve material and political success through the intervention of governments and unions in reining in the worst aspects of the ownership class, unlike anything seen before.

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

@@michaelvickers4437the emphasis needs to be on the past-tense for it to remain useful, however. The myth that it's the current status quo & that history hasn't proven a shift towards the current ever-narrowing power vacuum is harmful to the cause of reaching class consciousness, in my opinion. The perfect terminology introduced to distinguish different "degrees" of political agency among the working class was introduced by Lenin, who called those without ownership of production but _with_ a markedly higher income from their job as managers or intermediaries the "labor aristocracy". It certainly denotes a 'special' or privileged status of a minority of workers who are still pawns or tools of the bourgeoisie. It's been used differently/with subtle variants over the years, but that further proves the idea that history's march towards a monopolistic power vacuum is irrefutable. These silly class distinctions & imaginary stratifications to further divide the working class serve a particular purpose, are employed with certain effect AND affect, to intentionally sabotage the working class. To prevent us from attaining class consciousness both at the individual level & the mass line level. I'm glad you brought that up 👍 great f*cking comment. This is why I tell people the evolution of socialism is still underway, that it is a _living_ ideology. We had Marxism, then Leninism, then Marxism-Leninism, then Maoism, then Marxism-Leninism-Maoism 😆 Deng really put a damper on progress, but we can move beyond him by understanding Ho Chi Minh, who I think really took socialism to the next level.

[@timtebone1843]

@@Matthew.E.Kelly. . Saying we don't have a middle class is not the same as saying its not a thing. I said, own homes and have savings.. Its from the 60s lol

[@MrHipergrass]

Nice video, thanks a lot: I am Matteo from Italy, and here in Europe we have been experiencing the same economic decline as explained in the video. Thanks a gain, love from Italy.

[@fleshgordon8773]

It's rare to hear people talk about Friedman. Hayek also did us dirty. Friedman wanted a return to the 19th century.

[@dominickraimo2411]

Thank you! I'll hope you reach many people.

[@bonniegaither3994]

Actually, Ben, that’s EXACTLY what it does.

[@Manowarmx3]

Great video, just chill a bit on seeing everything through a black lense! It's 2024, let's move past that!

[@michaelcraft6657]

BTW Keynes even said the left had gone too far with his ideas.

[@patrickbateman1660]

Source?

[@GG.Sanchoo]

Keynes sucked, and Keynesian economics is just bourgeois economics with some welfare thrown in there, that’s about it

[@chillyoil528]

No? The left existed in conjunction with him and before him Keynes was not a leftist he was not a socialist Keynes still believed in the free market but balanced with government intervention and regulation as opposed to the classical liberalism of before (laizze faire capitalism) The USSR was founded in 1922 meanwhile Keynes most famous and influential book The general theory of employment in 1936 It took until the late 30s and early 40s for Western governments to begin introducing Keynesian policies What exactly do you think the left is? The left isn't liberalism and socialism isn't when the government does stuff

[@Ez4u2bnvs]

Saying Milton Friedman broke the American economy is like saying Sir Isac Newton broke gravity because he realized it existed.

[@cassh3908]

This ☝️

[@schmidty4992]

The ideas of free market economics had existed for quite some time before Friedman

[@Ez4u2bnvs]

@@schmidty4992 right, because they are fundamental, like gravity

[@schmidty4992]

@@Ez4u2bnvs Milton Friedman actively worked to change the dynamics within the “free” market. If the laws of the free market are fundamental how can anyone change what happens inside the free market? “Free” markets are artificially constructed - there would be no roads, infrastructure, police or laws for that matter in a truly free market - and the rules that govern a “free” market - laws, taxes, tariffs, ideologies- can be changed. A truly “free” market is an unstable and reproachable system that does not exist. anywhere on earth and for good reason.

[@StephenGleason0]

⁠@@schmidty4992 I’d imagine if the government provided food while also preventing everyone else from doing so, you’d have a difficult time imagining how food would work in a free market

[@missc.murphy3494]

Thanks so much for this video. Much more material to dig into. Need to get the haloes off Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan.

[@side1981]

Oh libertarians you have ruined our world.

[@worldofdoom995]

What libertarians? Which presidents were libertarian?

[@drwalker9093]

Those with an authoritarian bent may point out that libertarians have not held the very-highest political offices - but the libertarians (at least, since they stole that moniker) have been a pervasive propaganda machine, even if they seldom are able to convince voters that they are caring humans.

[@anonymousinfinido2540]

Whom did you find libertarian in here?

[@alexturner9194]

If you're reading this, please do your own research on both Friedman and Keynes, both parties constantly twist their ideas into something akin to political partisanship. This video is no exception. Also, fighting for higher wages means nothing if the government can dilute your buying power with their printer, or regulate you into hell as a retaliatory measure. It's a shame that was never addressed in the video. Economics is a dialogue, not a monolith, and videos like this stop conversations before they even start.

[@QT2809]

Obviously this video has a bias, it’s published by more perfect union which is an openly left-wing organisation. Having a bias doesn’t make the information or opinions in the video invalid; bias is unavoidable, and is just something the watcher should be aware of. Valid criticism of an economic ideology doesn’t equal silencing or censorship either, in fact a discerning watcher should know common criticisms in order to evaluate them.

[@roughhabit9085]

Friedman’s hero William Buckley once wrote “ We must do what we can to strike hammer blows on the bell jar that separates the dreamers from reality “ Friedman did his best but he was up against the machine.

[@alexturner9194]

@@QT2809 though I wish that were true, people generally just take info at face value and move on with their lives, carrying an opinion that might not even be theirs for decades. "A discerning watcher" is implying someone with prior knowledge, but this is supposed to be an introductory video to the topic, which is why I posted my comment encouraging further research.

[@bryanjames7528]

Rich folks don't actually care about inflation or high interest rates if the system is rigged in their favor. They just need people poorer than them to work for them and a government to keep them feeling comfortable

[@jaein7779]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Milton Friedman destroyed capitalism by unleashing laissez-faire capitalism.

[@matthewkuchinski1769]

Indeed, and Milton Friedman would be considered a war criminal and be charged with crimes against humanity in a proper system of justice existed. For not only was Friedman an inspiration for Agusto Pinochet's corrupt and ruthless regime, he also served as an advisor to the mad dictator, helped inspire Reagan's bloody wars in Latin America and the Middle East, and was a key element of the Bushes' handling of foreign affairs that still haunts us to this day.

[@practicaliching2311]

Laissez-faire government and Laissez-faire economics are counterintuitive ideas. Laffer Curve, peace through strength, and building a strong state on strong individuals given individual liberty and expecting individual responsibility, are counterintuitive ideas. Conservative ideas are counterintuitive. Liberalism is not an ideology. A left leaning bias is caused by mental and emotional instability that makes a person unable to still their mind long enough to understand how the counterintuitive nature of the universe works so a person falls back on their emotions to reach a conclusion. That is why there are no successful liberal political talk radio shows. Liberals need moving pictures or hand puppets to trigger their emotions. There was a huge global study where they asked thousands of people hundreds of questions and grouped them by their answers. People that ranked high in conscientiousness also favored conservative policies. People that ranked low in conscientiousness also favored liberal policies. Meaning liberals have no intention of doing what is right or making sacrifices for the good of society. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to report having mental problems in some groups and report higher mental problems across the board. This mental instability and inability to still their mind long enough to understand how conservative policies help poor and working class people is the cause of their problem. If you look up the traits of narcissists, you will see they are exactly the same as liberal politicians and activists, because they are both driven in total by their hatred and emotions.

[@practicaliching2311]

3 The truth is right there in front of you despite what the liberal media has told you. Conservative policies are what actually help poor and lower income people. When during the Trump administration, the bottom 1/5th of wage earners had their incomes rise the fastest of all groups. That was the first time that had happened since the George W Bush administration. Because both Trump and W. used Kennedy's theory of using lower taxes, less immigration, deregulation, and smaller government to tighten up the labor market. Which raises wages, allows mobility, allows for advancement, and gives people dignity. Compare that to the Democrat policies of using high taxes, over regulation, open immigration, and big government to put permanent slack into the labor market. Which drives down wages and drives up housing prices at the same time, to the point tens of millions of people don't have any money left over at the end of the month. And it's the low wages at the bottom that allows the excesses at the top, causing the wealth gap. Raising the bottom 1/5th of wage earners wealth relative to everyone else is something liberals will never be able to do because of their policies.

[@practicaliching2311]

The fact that it is conservative policies that help poor and lower income people is backed up by the IRS data. "Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent. By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.) That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more. What’s more, IRS data shows earners in higher income brackets contributed a bigger slice of the total income tax revenue pie following the passage of the tax reform law than they had in the previous year. In fact, every income bracket with filers earning $200,000 or more increased its tax burden in 2018 compared to 2017, and every income bracket with a top limit lower than $200,000 paid a smaller proportion of the total personal tax revenue collected. That means that Republicans’ tax reform law resulted in the tax code becoming slightly more progressive - the exact opposite of what Democrats have claimed over the past four years. The IRS data further shows that the tax reform law - which included a variety of business tax cuts, including a large reduction in the corporate income tax rate - spurred economic mobility. Every income bracket with a top level lower than $25,000 experienced a reduction in its number of filers, and every income bracket above $25,000 increased in size, with the biggest gains occurring in the brackets with a floor of at least $100,000. The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity."

[@practicaliching2311]

Investigations consistently find that people who identify with liberal ideology are significantly more likely than others to be depressed, anxious, and to rank high on neuroticism. Liberals are also much more likely than conservatives to be diagnosed with mental illnesses or disorders. Liberals are roughly twice as likely as conservatives to report being diagnosed with a mental illness. Liberals Are Far More Likely to be Depressed, Anxious, or Otherwise Neurotic Compared to Conservatives. Liberals are significantly more likely to experience adverse mental and emotional conditions. People who score highly on “Dark Triad” characteristics (narcissism, psychopathy, Machivallianism) may be especially likely to gravitate towards certain strains of “social justice” ideology. Likewise with many inclined towards authoritarianism. Conclusion: The well-being gap between liberals and conservatives is one of the most robust patterns in social science research. It is not a product of things that happened over the last decade or so; it goes back as far as the available data reach. The differences manifest across age, gender, race, religion, and other dimensions. They are not merely present in the United States, but in most other studied countries as well. Some strains of liberal ideology likely exacerbate (and even incentivize) anxiety, depression, and other forms of unhealthy thinking. The increased power and prevalence of these ideological frameworks post-2011 may have contributed to the dramatic and asymmetrical rise in mental distress among liberals over the past decade. People who are unwell may be especially attracted to liberal politics over conservatism for a variety of reasons, and this may exacerbate observed ideological gaps net of other factors This article is an American Affairs online exclusive, published March 21, 2023. How to Understand the Well-Being Gap between Liberals and Conservatives by Musa al-Gharbi Chan, E. Y. (2019). Political orientation and physical health: The role of personal responsibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 117-122. Fatke, M. (2017). Personality Traits and Political Ideology: A First Global Assessment. Political Psychology, 38(5), 881-899.

[@jgray2718]

That is an amazing statement by Ben Shapiro at 0:02. He really knows literally nothing about how an economy works, doesn't he? That thing he said, even with the overt classism and the hyperbolic nonsense, _would_ spur the economy, and quite a lot. That's like the first day of macro 101. Getting money circulating is how the economy grows. Money in the bank is money that's not doing anything. Money that's buying hamburgers is income for the seller of hamburgers.

[@worldofdoom995]

Yeah the multimillionaire business owner has no clue about economics. ...

[@jgray2718]

@@worldofdoom995 Business has very little to do with macroeconomics. How the economy works and how to run a business are completely different, and it's why businesspeople often suck at understanding the economy. They go "Well it's all money, and money is money, so they must work the same! I'm a genius!" and then get everything wrong, just like Shapiro here. How "spurred on" the economy is is due largely to the marginal propensity to save and marginal propensity to spend with more spending meaning a "hotter" economy. Rich people, as Ben says, tend to save. Poor people are forced to spend all their money just to survive. Giving poor people money increases the economy-wide propensity to spend, spurring the economy. It's literally macro 101, and Ben doesn't know it. He doesn't know it to such a degree that he scoffs as if he's obviously right when even a freshman econ major would know he's not only wrong, but is arrogantly proclaiming the opposite of the truth. So yeah, the millionaire business owner doesn't know macroeconomics and should probably shut up before embarrassing himself further. Or he could try to learn stuff before weighing in on it, but this is Ben Shapiro we're talking about here so knowing things is probably out of the question.

[@epicmarschmallow5049]

​@@worldofdoom995 Being rich doesn't mean you understand economics, it's easy to get rich with little to no understanding of macroeconomics (a sufficiently well paying job, or a good inheritance would do the trick). Being a business owner doesn't mean you understand economics, at best it means you know how to run a business (or at least hire people who understand it)

[@worldofdoom995]

@@epicmarschmallow5049 why not? Reading das kapital apparently makes one more informed than 99% of economists apparently

[@GG.Sanchoo]

@@worldofdoom995unironically does

[@bethchiles5952]

So glad this channel showed up in my feed.

[@jamesomeara2329]

Is there still a middle class? Seems all we have is working class or working poor, and we can't find the common ground that we need to.

[@epicmarschmallow5049]

Of course there's a middle class. It's normally defined either as people who earn a specified wage (for instance the Pew research facility defines it as those earning between 43k and 130k a year). This accounts for roughly 50% of adults in the US

[@scottevans7939]

If you think the government is going to save you. Boy, you are in big trouble.

[@robfromvan]

So true 😊

[@guacamole7493]

So you are saying that we can't govern ourselves? A government of the people by the people and for the people? We could. except a lot wealthy, powerful people corrupt it and then say look government doesn't work. They even get ordinary people saying this. Playing into their own hand. Capitalism will always corrupt democracy.

[@ThePelicular]

When your being robbed who do you call to catch the thief and bring him to justice. A government employee called a cop and other govt. employees to get justice and maybe compensation. I believe govt. should be as small as possible but some functions are necessary.Who will protect you from the shysters and hucksters that form cartels and monopolies that collude to fix prices and stamp out competition to the detriment of consumers. I don't call that free market I call that captured markets. Who you gonna call Ghostbusters? No, you call some entity that has the power to enforce this kind of criminal behavior. I can only think of one but I am open to suggestion.

[@ThePelicular]

Why was Milton Friedman against taxing corporations did he forget that in the eyes of law they are people too so why would these people get special treatment, just asking.

[@sarvamithraJr]

So true. The government couldn't save us so good ol' Ronnie boy gave that power to the corporations. And they have truly saved 'Murica. All the more power to those patriotic billionaire CEOs.

[@Vaan362]

Thank you so much for covering this important historical detail!

[@ThemFuzzyMonsters]

Strangely we forget that for most of human history we had unregulated economies where a few (church & nobility) controlled all the wealth. … and no wealth ever trickled down.

[@salvant77]

Sure, this is the moment in time with the most humans alive and longest life expectancy. Nothing tricked down XD.

[@thoperSought]

wait, wait, wait: at age14, Friedman's mom was able to get a *_job,_* not at *_education,_* and this is supposed to be a good thing?? what a sick psycho

[@TheMD20]

I recognize NO obligation towards men except one, respect their freedom...

[@mosesonamotorbike]

Glad you followed up Jack Welch with this one.

[@nessimrihani5962]

Finally some americans who can talk some sense. Thanks man for Giving me hope

[@Jack908r]

I remember those days. And all the arguments for and against. We were warned against his ideas, but the rich won. And the manufacturing, and middle class, lost. The sooner we ditch his failed ideas the better.

[@dfolz1101]

Why is his output with you guys seemingly more prolific than his own channel 😭

[@jackbucher2049]

Shorter vids=higher output

[@MsZeitgeist85]

NOTE. Milton Friedman's best example of the free market at work is Hong Kong. A place that has nationalized health care, robust public housing and housing regulations and strict gun control.

[@peixeserra9116]

There is also Chile. A country who's government had heavy control over vital sectors of the Economy and actively participated in Poverty Reduction campaigns to try and stop the country's rampant poverty, even during the height of the "Chicago Boys" reign.

[@ryanjohnson6272]

I'd love to see one on Thomas Sowell

[@Owesomasaurus]

FD did a video on black conservatives on his channel. His take on Sowell is "I don't read Sowell, why would I im not white."

[@Ziaoe]

The rich paid 90 % in "marginal taxes“. It was not a straight 90%. I hope you will do a video on marginal taxes. Thank you for this video. 🙂

[@RobertDrane]

Okay, nobody gets this. It's astonishing. In case anyone isn't aware. If there's an income bracket of $0-100 bracket taxed at 10% then one for $101-200 bracket at 20%, some who earns $101 will pay $10.20 NOT $20.20. 10% on every dollar in the first bracket and 20% for every dollar in the second bracket.