Milton Friedman CLASHES with Leftist Neil Kinnock in FIERCE debate (1980)

Milton Friedman vs socialist egalitarian politician Neil Kinnock
Battle of Ideologies - Fiery Debate on Freedom vs Equality of opportunity and of result

[@vincentcooper9139]

Considering how Kinnock ended up a wealthy man "working" for the EU, a huge bureaucracy which taxes the workers and spends vast sums of that tax over-paying bureaucrats like Kinnock and giving them gold-plated pensions, you really do have to laugh. listening to him in this debate, Kinnock proves Friedmann right.

[@nicosmind3]

One of my favourite facts about the EU and it's from quite a while ago so probably much worse now, is that their very own auditors stated that 50 billion was unaccounted for!!! I can only imagine how bad that number truly is and where that money ended up!

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@nicosmind3satanists in power… so, it is really surprising?

[@flachi32]

Was that Kinnock's fault or intention? The EU is to blame. If your employer offered you a 1000% pay rise you would refuse? The systems are being debated here not morality.

[@gtertgvsdfv4904]

and yet people in EU are happier and healthier than US ones, so maybe having bureaucracy is better than crony capitalism though.

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@flachi32 the laws in the EU are not made by the assembly (in the stupidly big round chamber full of the MEPs you vote for and see on telly who only have the “power” of ratification) but by a small group of faceless, unknown, NON-ELECTED, elites who pay themselves a fortune (called “the European Commissioners”)… This is flagrant totalitarianism - a tyrannical power has taken Europe. Many of these freaks are from German neo-nazi (leftist) roots - and the great majority are from arch-communist backgrounds. Tony Blair and his odious wife are said to be part of this secret elite. (Mandlesssssson, another….) Neil bloody Kinnock is known to be another….!!! Wake UP!

[@rjw4762]

The fact that Kinnock went on to become a EU Commissioner says as much about the EU as it does him .

[@dogwithwigwamz.7320]

Does it say as much about Farage ? Farage takes a pension from that place he despises which amounts to more than twice the average wage of the British worker working 50 hours a week. No ! - he doesn`t hate the European Union as much as he tells you he does. But don`t worry about Farage. The opportunites open to his children have not been altered one iota on the grounds of us leaving the European Union - not least on the grounds that he and his children are still in possession of a European Union Passport. Wouldn`t it have been nice if St. Nigel at least handed over his EU Passport upon leaving the European Union -whilst the rest of us are forced to ?

[@freemason4979]

For all their (the left) talk about big business, it never seizes to amaze me that their "solution" is always bigger govt, i.e. the biggest monopoly of them all.

[@svenhaheim]

The quality of dialogue in this is so vastly higher than what we usually see today in politics regardless of whos side one is on.

[@FeelMetalMan]

it's ironically refreshing

[@Corteum]

Maybe it was all that fluoride

[@rc2869]

Well Said - great debate.

[@user-hl7nt1og7k]

Also the overall atmosphere of the debate. It was a proper fight, but a dignified one, filled with respect for the others intelligence.

[@Kyryyn_Lyyh]

The welfare state has only ever expanded. There are multiple generations of families who have never worked a real job. Currently we are seeing a crisis in skilled labour due to the talented people dropping out of society as there is no benefit. Fantastic to review these arguments decades later, where we have our answers.

[@manufacturedconsent7850]

Yes, yet still argue about exactly the same things !!!

[@hus390]

Rubbish! You can’t qualify for it all this time, if you don’t work.

[@FHIPrincePeter]

​@@hus390Totally agree.

[@Hibernicus1968]

At about 8:15 Prof. Friedman talks about the economic freedom of the 19th century, and how during this time, there was more charitable giving being done than ever before or since. Friedman makes two fact-based assertions: 1) 3/4 of the beds in British hospitals, in 1980 when this debate was held, were found in private hospitals that existed because of philanthropic sponsorship by wealthy individuals making private donations, and 2) this was a period when working people were becoming better off, their standard of living was rising, and the gap in income between rich and poor was shrinking. Kinnock tries to refute this starting at about the 11:00 mark. Listen carefully to his answer; it's gobbledygook. He starts saying "see what I was taught was that philanthropists, taught by people who were the victims of philanthropists, who employed them for six days of the week, and then victimized them for the other." He rambles on for a couple of minutes more, but he doesn't really _say_ anything. It's word salad. Prof. Friedman makes simple, straightforward, fact-based assertions that anyone could independently verify with a little basic research if they care to investigate for themselves. Kinnock responds with totally unsupported assertions about what he was taught, and how the poor really had it so bad in the 19th century, and collective financing has made all that better, and there is not _one_ single, solitary, independently verifiable factual assertion offered in support of _anything_ he says. This shouldn't surprise anyone. One of the participants was a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and a scholar accustomed to doing research, citing supporting evidence, making logically sound arguments, etc., and the other was a slick politician, whose main talent was for demagoguing issues in order to gain political advantage.

[@Sean-fj9pn]

Good comment. Kinnock is not an unintelligent man but he is a misled one or perhaps just a disingenuous one blinded by his leftist ideaology. He knows how to waffle too.

[@TizerWales]

Very well put.

[@James_36]

the more i listen to left wingers, the more they are absolutely sinister in their deceit - they just want to be the all powerful and tell everyone what to do...

[@nedgeson326]

Ah, the 19th century. When the vast majority of people lived in slums and the elite lived in opulence.

[@Hibernicus1968]

@@nedgeson326 For most of human history, about 99% of the people in the world lived on than $2 a day genius. There was _always_ a wealthy, powerful elite lording it over the rest, not just during the 19th century. In fact it was during the 19th century that began to change. I guess because it didn't happen overnight you'd prefer it didn't happen at all.

[@stevehubler3024]

I doubt Kinnock ever created anything of value for anyone, anytime,.

[@C_R_O_M________]

He and Bernie Sanders together (and most of career/professional politicians).

[@DieFlabbergast]

Except for himself :)

[@ravenzyblack]

I doubt he created anything.

[@paulmartin9194]

Liberals are consumers, usually benefactors of public sector jobs. Conservatives are usually producers. Heard a great fact that the most common factor to convert someone from liberal to Conservative is a lottery win.

[@The-Rest-of-Us]

Wow, everything Milton Friedman said over 40 years ago is more relevant today than ever.

[@Si_Mondo]

True, however the Austrian School economists like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises were even more prescient than Friedman. Rothbard predicted how the monetary system would turn out back in the 1963.

[@C_R_O_M________]

@@Si_Mondo absolutely! Friedman was fundamentally wrong in his monetarist views. Trusting central planners with the monetary system (even though he thought of the FED as independent) is a fatal flaw. Austrian economic thought brought us BTC and there's a good chance we are winning this battle for good. Look at the inflation (which is by design, imo - to burn sovereign debt).

[@TedATL1]

@@Si_Mondo Friedman came to U of Chicago in the early 50s when Von Hayek and the Austrian school were already dominating the department there. So Friedman didnt invent the approach but he added major research to it. And is its greatest expositor.

[@keithwaller4545]

Kinnock with his gold plated pensions from the taxpayer for doing what exactly 🤷‍♀️

[@flachi32]

Th EU did not exist when this was recoreded. Comment on the debate not what happened after 1992.

[@C_R_O_M________]

@@flachi32Fiedman was 100% right on his predictions and he actually hit bull's eye with "imagine a world where civil servants work for civil servants and not the public". That's exactly what's happening all across the indebted West as we speak. Argentina voted for Milei, after decades of Kinnock's policies. Greece is another living paradigm as well. Democratic Socialism gets progressively more socialist than democratic (and that's my observation living in Greece).

[@RevoltingPeasant123]

@@flachi32The EU was almost 30 years old when this was recorded. What the hell are you talking about?

[@flachi32]

@@RevoltingPeasant123 not as a political union with a flag. It was an economic union still called the EEC

[@robmullender-ross2667]

@@C_R_O_M________ that's the interesting thing about the neoliberal free market ideology - it's a purity cult. If things go 'wrong' it's always someone else's fault for not being neoliberal enough. But if things go right then it was the right thing all along, regardless. The comment about civil servants is a great example - as though 'big government' is creating problems... In the UK the government is smaller than it's ever been and let me tell you we are circling the drain as a result.

[@TheOriginalPickleRick]

The age of the terrible comb-over.

[@davidgreenwood5241]

This was the guy who was anti eu till they offered him and his wife fantastic jobs

[@paulmartin9194]

Sinn Fein here in Ireland are just as bad. Claim to be socialists yet most of the senior members are extremely well off. They were also notoriously anti EU, pro life and against gay marriage. Changed their principles for political gain.

[@valiskuk]

Looks like the full version of this would be quite an interesting debate.

[@GiovanniAdami]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@LaminarSound]

Single income household here raising a family of 4, government taxed my bonus at 30%. The government is the gangster. Nobody else is stealing my hard earned cash. Government has now given my tax dollars to lenders in repayment of student loans that i didn’t benefit from. Friedman is exactly spot on.

[@ryanarborist]

Friedman says it all the time. A and B get together and decide to spend C's money on D. Then D tells you all the wonderful things that you're impeding by not agreeing to shoveling your money into these voids. How many STEM, law, business degrees became something profitable compared to the theater degree college experience waste those tax dollars are going to.

[@C_R_O_M________]

It was in a book of Peter Drucker (father of modern management) that I read the following (which stuck with me ever since). Paraphrasing: (all) governments are (essentially) criminal organizations whose sole purpose is to deceive and exploit the populace; the only laws they obey are natural laws"! That's powerful and, above all, the bitter truth.

[@Lytton333]

@@ryanarborist This is why quality culture is moribund, because the sciences and the arts do not sit in mutual reciprocation any more. They've been separated ideologically to serve, respectively, both private corporatism and statist ideological corporatism. These are the two pincers that are pummelling real cultural development.

[@copperpot5462]

If Kinnock was the Duke of Westminster he would not in a trillion years give up one acre of his inheritance. Not one. He dislikes inheritance because he doesn't have any.

[@acctsys]

He sold the narrative until he accumulated wealth off of taxpayers then he passed inheritance to his children. Politicians do not understand economics and the value of capital. Pandering to envy is politically gainful, but detrimental to economy and freedom.

[@mcc5901]

Great exchange, Friedman on fire and the great educator as always. And while Kinnock spoke well, his actions speak louder as he went on to become very wealthy as a politician and so proving Friedman’s concerns over A and B taxing C to give to D while much of that money staying with A and B. As they say there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government programme. But is there anything worse than decrying the position of the poor and lining your pockets in their name? That is the greatest crime of the socialist

[@epic6434]

You're right the socialist has only their position to protect and the poor are the working class taking whatever they get?

[@mr.jamesdavidrobert2115]

Hardcore, awesome discussion. Absolute gem of a video.

[@neil5872]

Kinnock is clueless, nothing has changed

[@mikethomas9698]

Friedman won this battle but unfortunately Kinnock and his like won the war.

[@Will46666]

No wonder they called Kinnock a “ Windbag”. His sentences are SO long.

[@mrpenguin815]

He has a lovely voice. I could listen to him speak for hours and luckily for me, that is how long his sentences last.

[@Will46666]

@@mrpenguin815 He sounds so clever too. If only I were clever enough to understand what the hell he was talking about.

[@YourBestFriendforToday]

Whatever side you're on, I wish we could get substantive debates like this today.

[@TheOriginalPickleRick]

Thank god kinnock never became PM.

[@James_36]

unfortunately his 2 apprentices did

[@Cre8tvMG]

Milton is 1000x smarter than any of the people arguing against him.

[@DieFlabbergast]

No: Milton's argument is stronger than Kinnock's, but that has nothing to do with his IQ or Kinnock's IQ. Noam Chomsky and a whole host of other high-IQ people would be on Kinnock's side. In my opinion, they would be on the wrong side, but that is certainly NOT because they are of inferior intelligence. People choose their political and philosophical standpoints for emotional reasons, for reasons of personal character. It has nothing to do with being "smarter."

[@EnlightenedBro105]

@@DieFlabbergast Facts.

[@yellowstoic7678]

All you need to know is how do people walk with their feet. Is it from Socialism to Capitalism or Capitalism to Socialism?

[@Si_Mondo]

Spoken like a true praxeologist. 👍

[@flachi32]

A civilised and stable can accommodate both.

[@acctsys]

​@@flachi32Only capitalism can accommodate pockets of socialism. Socialism cannot exist with pockets of capitalism exactly because socialism is rooted upon envy.

[@Panicked_Syndrome]

so nice to see people so fundamentally different able to laugh together at times of divergence.

[@Tryingtimes007]

Friedman is casting pearls.

[@adam_meek]

Kinnuck the ultimit hipucrit.

[@hus390]

Militon wanted to eliminates distress and private charities can help, then says gov aid to these people should continue. We have a mix now that’s working well for humanity. A market-based system and a social safety net.

[@edwardbit8225]

kinnock accumulating wealth via talking about how it should be redistributed.......nice one neil.

[@James_36]

funny how they never re-distribute their own wealth isnt it

[@canaldoespertao1686]

Por favor posso legendar e postar no meu canal?

[@BaxterJaspurr]

Milton was so far above most everyone who tried to argue against him. The Einstein of economics. Kinnock makes no argument supported by any logic or facts.

[@user-df3cx9lh4j]

The Einstein of economics was Einstein. He was a communist, wrote for the Monthly Review, a Marxist publication, and hated the wasteful nature of capitalism’s profit motive.

[@nicosmind3]

Wow from point of view of philanthropy Kinnock had to go right to the start of real wealth creation, and ignore that government philanthropy was much worse then compared to private, and ignore how good private philanthropy became after that, while government for a few centuries treated the poor like slaves and lesser humans. It wasnt until society at large was so disgusted with how government treated them that things actually changed in governments approach

[@blakej6416]

Ugh, this Kinnock guy is such a phony. He constantly tries to play up the emotional angle and evade the facts.

[@smithjoe321]

How'd you get this? Do you have more from it?

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

or have a look at Thomas Sowell

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@fwily2580]

Emotion vs a Nobel prize winner. I just do what Oprah and The View tells me to do.

[@NoosaHeads]

I thought that the discussion was civilised and dignified, up to the time when Kinnock referred to Freeman as part of a team of gangsters. This old chestnut of wickedly insulting your opponent in a debate is something the US Democrats would take on 40 years later. The moment Kinnck started with the ad hominem attacks, he completely lost my respect.

[@grahamhill9499]

The problem was kinnock ,wanted the trough

[@tictoc5443]

Teacher and students

[@olicorrivo3289]

You cant shake the feeling that Friedman is applying the natural selection vs artificial selection scheme in the economical realm. I don't know what to think about that, as long as i don't hear him say "The stronger will survive and that's for the best"

[@thatwilldonicely1314]

He was known as the welsh windbag for a good reason !

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

also worth looking at some of the Thomas Sowell videos and books

[@kevingallen1678]

I had forgotten what a windbag Kinnock was!

[@painbow6528]

All left-wing opinion is performative.

[@queenieman6883]

Most of what Hayek says here is insane compared to the common sense Kinnock is talking

[@C_R_O_M________]

@@queenieman6883 Kinnock's a demagogue and that was Milton Friedman not Friedrich Hayek. Kinnock-type policies brought Argentina and Greece to their knees for decades. I know because I live in Greece and I'm economically literate. I don't think you are. Democratic Socialism becomes progressively more socialist and less democratic. As soon as you surrender pieces of your life to central planners they rule you more and more until the economy shrinks so much and corruption reaches such a high level that society resets through some Milei-type reaction. I wish Milei succeeds in cleaning the "manure in Augean's stables" that decades of socialist policies created (and bankrupted the whole of society).

[@paulmartin9194]

It's the easiest thing in the world to proclaim socialism when your set for life through public funded salaries and pensions

[@findlay234]

never seen this before... gosh Neil Kinnocks constant smirk and rolling his eyes... right there you can see why all communist states end in disaster...

[@marshalmcdonald7476]

Kinnock strikes me as a typical whiner. Friedman is simply an adult.

[@barryfoster453]

Neil Kinnock was always like a six foot man in a 10 foot pool...out of his depth...in everything. I have never heard him say anything intelligent. The electorate saw straight through him, and that must have hurt him.

[@bca2013]

Thanks for posting the clip! The other big guns on the panel are Nigel Lawson, and Maurice Peston (father of the journalist Robert Peston). The full debate is here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@Blt-rr2lm]

There used to be multiple oil companies. Now there are three. Walmart workers are on food stamps. Why are we subsidizing Walmart? In 2008, we bailed out banks because they greedied themselves into a corner. Before that, we bailed out car companies. One percent of the population has ninety percent of the wealth. Wages haven’t come close to keeping up with inflation. If Economics is a science, why is there so many discrepancies in predicting the economic future? Basically, I give up.

[@FHIPrincePeter]

I recognise Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer around the table. Who are the other ones?

[@Hughenn]

Not 100% sure but I think the person sitting next to Friedman is Peter Jay.

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@sidstam]

If Kinnock was setting up to defend government control and intervention, he undermined it at the end: He was agreeing on Friedman's earlier point that a powerful man in government, Rockefeller, would've done better as a private individual than running New York.

[@austinlittke7688]

the only point kinnock got him on was the last point. When people accumulate all this wealth they then go on to either politically prevent others from competing with them, rather by ammending laws or backdoor diplomacy or whatever, or they forcibly suppress and buy out their competition. I've never heard Freidman come up with a way in which this can be prevented under his system, which is laissez-faire free market capitalism. Even Teddy Roosevelt was unsuccessful in his attempt to disrupt these practices, and none of the anti monopoly laws we put in place after the fact have done anything. The fact is, everyone has their price, and the rich who have accumulated capital will always use their position to pervert the system and extort the poor. Now certainly he's right that less socialism is better, since the results of a government and its laws constraining a private entity is much more incentivized and honorable or less efficient at corruption than a government and its laws trying to monitor and constrain its own corruption, but im not sure the corporate capture of government we see today or throughout history is the result of socialism or constriction of the free market. Certainly in degree the disparity and quality of living is muh worse due to that and the government control over money supply and interest rates etc, but to what degree? You can't get rid of the end result under any government, because even if you create the perfect government, it will slowly be eroded and perverted by those with accumulated capital or positions of both until it is no better than what we see today

[@howardsportugal]

Interesting to note that Neil Kinnock is a multi-millionaire... It is nevertheless good & refreshing to hear civilised intelligent argument rather than woke soundbites...

[@James_36]

oh they can be, it is those "poor" people who should never be

[@pasantosjacinto8176]

Génio. Também penso o mesmo de Thomas Sowell

[@stevenholt4936]

Ye gods, Kinnock really is a wrong-headed windbag. The UK had a narrow escape.

[@beng4151]

Government cuts back on waste and inefficiency??? What has he been smoking???

[@pedrocabrera6005]

U r the Best to explein

[@TizerWales]

13:45 Friedman 'It is the security of the civil service that is a major objective of most of these programs'

[@wetmonkey29]

Friedman is a fucking legend. His words become more powerful with time.

[@AdamIndikt]

You can see the difference in quality between Milton and the others. Kinnock was a multi-election loser for good reason.

[@flachi32]

Tbis kind of debate is refreshing and should be produced today. Imagine Rachel Reeves v a monetarist. Kinnock was class in the 80s.

[@MintJdjsh]

Gold

[@stephensharp3033]

Joe Biden quoted Kinnock.

[@nigelp567]

I come away from this thinking that Neil Kinnock created the word salad What a load of garbage he spews !! 😂

[@m.afajar854]

politics dictate that someone in the position of power will give benefit to their follower if they can thats inevitable thats why govt should not be allowed to do that

[@cato451]

Turns out Kinnock policies were implemented and failed miserably. The Kinnock crowd, recognizing these failures, have moved away from cries of equal opportunity by force to equal outcomes by force.

[@venmis137]

This is the guy behind the Thatcherite Consensus? Really?

[@FeelMetalMan]

18:50 they only do cause there's a politician with the power to grant them that privilege, and in social democracies this is the norm

[@Drchainsaw77]

18:20 I don't know if anyone caught it later on or not, but Kinnock completely destroys his entire rationale when he complains that those who have money and power join government in order to cement that power. In Friedman's world, and in the world created by the US Constitution, the government would have no power to do what these people wanted.

[@tHYRR3N]

Terribly cut video, cuts off arguments and rebutals randomly

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@stevenodenthal3642]

You can’t abuse freedom. The only way you can abuse someone else is with the help of government. That is not abuse of freedom.

[@Gminor7]

“Can’t abuse freedom.” False. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan explains the “state of nature”, the “war of all against all”. This state of affairs has been promoted by all right wing/royalist/libertarian proponents, particularly Friedman, his predecessors and followers up to the present. The freedom of the top predators is assured - they are free to destroy the lower classes at their leisure.

[@pedrocabrera6005]

Viva la escuela austriaca

[@slimjim4239]

friedman was a great talker - he needed better debaters - note Lawson soaking it all up - why aren't they talking over each other and interrupting

[@RRSWarriors]

Neil Kinnock is the Gavin Newsome of the 80s

[@chokin78]

Government gangsters! What a hypocrite!

[@garethwatkins6347]

Kinloch is now a millionaire !

[@moltderenou]

Multi

[@lesliefuller1456]

Kinnock has 2 talents. The ability to get people to vote for him and the ability to get rich from it.

[@TheWiggum123]

As much as I dislike him, you have to admit he didn’t cower reframing it as a right, he called it an obligation. I don’t how many times I’ve had to call out someone invoking a right when it’s really a duty they are invoking. You would never see that in a modern political debate.

[@queenieman6883]

Hayek is sat there claiming the 'small state' Victorian age was good BC of what philanthropy the industry barons did, while not considering the immense growth of wellbeing during the organised labour age of 1890s - 1950s compared to the Victorian age.

[@andrewharty3874]

Long winded hyperbole

[@mided2119]

What was Nigel Lawson doing just sitting there?

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

its the edited version

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@user-ho4rv6kg8u]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCcpHuddp2CmqM

[@ForeverBennett]

Both are wrong, and both are right. The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

[@jdb47games]

If one person says 2+2=4 and another says 2+2=5, do you think the truth is somewhere in the middle?

[@ForeverBennett]

@@jdb47games that's arithmetic, not political philosophy. In arithmetic, there is always a clear and correct answer.

[@SP-1414]

Neil Kinnock is NOT a left winger ffs. He’s spent years trying to destroy a left leaning leader of the Labour Party in the UK.

[@jackmorgan2747]

False equivalence

[@mesolithicman164]

An efficient society will be one that nurtures the special talents of people from any class or background. Most of us are mediocre to some extent, but society really benefits from those gifted people who have special talents. Rich people in positions they have no right to occupy should be weeded out and replaced by more talented people of any class. A true meritocracy is by far the most logical and efficient use of a nation's human resources. A Clydesdale horse, for example, would be useless in a steeplechase, but is unequalled pulling a carriage. Find the right fit for people rather than this dishonest one size fits all ethos.

[@wyssmaster]

In what world can you say that the rich don't "deserve" their income, and that a "true meritocracy" would necessarily involve artificially propping up people who have not earned larger incomes? I suppose you could argue that the wealthy kids of wealthy parents don't "deserve" their money, but then most of the overall worth of those people doesn't come from income. It is literally impossible for someone incompetent to luck into becoming a millionaire or billionaire, with the exception of elected government officials who engage in illicit behavior. If I start a company and in twenty years am running a billion dollar company, clearly I've done something incredibly well. If an artist is struggling financially, there is simply no way that you could say he "merits" a substantially larger income, solely due to his field of work.

[@wyssmaster]

Also your solution would be to put the economy into the hands of a few hundred people who necessarily cannot have expertise in every single field, rather than in the hands of the 330 million Americans who are determining which companies succeed and which fail every single day.

[@mesolithicman164]

@@wyssmaster Hollywood is full of what the call 'Nepo kids'. Self explanatory, really. They are occupying roles purely because of their connections. In the City of London, if you come through Eton and have the right accent, surname and family connections you are right in to a prestige job. Regardless of your talent. This is why so many people are willing to pay expensive fees, they know that they are purchasing advantage. An efficient society nurtures its best talent, whatever the background, and gives them a route to prove themselves. If they fail, they will be found out and replaced. This is so self evidently the logical approach I don't see how you could sensibly argue against it. Meritocracy is akin to survival of the fittest as a principle, Darwin would surely approve.

[@mesolithicman164]

@@wyssmaster You only have to look at Russian oligarchs who became hugely rich as a result of inside connections to disprove your point about the acquisition of great wealth. Trump inherited his wealth. Nancy Pelosi and her husband became incredibly rich as a result of inside knowledge, the Bidens used political access to generate vast wealth. People in the defence industry use bribery and blackmail to oil the wheels of their wealth Nicki Haley was almost broke till she was able to get on the boards of of major defence contractors and use her connections. Your homespun theory that millionaires are all rich as a result of dogged hard work and a spark of genius is mostly a fantasy

[@vantheman1238]

Kinnock is a hypocrite

[@christophergould995]

Kinnock a leftist.You must be joking

[@gordonwilson1631]

The young Neil Kinnock was very good but lost his way due to turning on the Labour Party instead of his true political foes. Know your enemy.

[@karlbarlow8040]

Neil Kinnock, leftist 😂

[@blakebrown534]

In the year this was filmed Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 28%, so it's funny to me how Friedman says going after wealth inequality by targeting those with the most is bad but somehow cutting taxes so massively for the absolute richest people is totally acceptable. Wealth inequality is a massive problem for our society right now and has a massive list of negative consequences for everyone. In 1980 the top 1% of earners gained 11% of the national income share and the bottom 50% gained ~19.5% of the national income share. As of 2016 the top 1% took in 20% of the national income share and the bottom 50% get less than 13%. It's probably even worse today.

[@EmoBrotherREAL]

The reduction of the top tax rate of 70% to 28% was not done within a year. There was a first tax cut in 1981 which reduced it from 70% to 50% and then 5 years later it was reduced again to 38.5% and then over the next few years it was reduced to 28%. You also forget to mention that the lowest personal income tax was also lowered. Also during this period the average income grew 16.8%, unemployment fell from 7.5% to 5.4% and the inflation rate more than halved. And I’m genuinely asking here if you could explain how exactly the Reagan tax cuts caused this jump in income inequality as opposed to other factors and if you don’t mind how exactly income inequality is a problem

[@wyssmaster]

Income is not a zero sum game; overall earnings for the rich can increase without seeing a decrease in earnings (and in fact seeing an increase) for the middle and lower classes. Even with an increase of income inequality we've seen substantial increases in earnings across the board since the 1980s.

[@rjw4762]

Well said - the average person today in 'the West' is a lot richer than 40 years ago. That said, ask me my views in another 40 years..... @@wyssmaster

[@TheTimdoyle]

So you believe we should tax people more as they earn. What about those who do nothing?

[@ryanarborist]

@@TheTimdoyle they get those tax dollars from the people doing. Then they vote to keep those policies.

[@DrukMax]

Funny to see these old interviews or the "Free to Choose" series from the time Milton Friedmans ideas did not yet got disproven by reality. The guy was an idiot believing things like: doctors don't need a license, just privatize it all.

[@ClayShentrup]

Friedman was generally right but he was far too oppositional to wealth redistribution. If it's funded by efficient taxes like land value taxes and pigovian taxes, and if it's distributed as Ubi or even the marginally inferior negative income tax, then it has little to no deadweight loss.

[@tonyclifton2230]

Friedman was so full of it. He just talked and ended up with if you try to distribute the wealth it will only make the rich richer. You are better off giving it to the rich where it will trikle down and create equality. How has that worked out for the last 40 years.

[@chrismichaels6928]

Friedman’s model failed the middle class !! 👍👍👍

[@wyssmaster]

The "destruction of the middle class" is an illusion. People look at the number of Americans making a certain wage thirty years ago, see that number decrease and say "Look! The middle class is shrinking!" without understanding that the people who were earning that amount thirty years ago are making quite a bit more today (as naturally they would, given yearly raises that are standard in nearly every single career). Sure, overall income inequality has increased, but that does not mean that the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, but rather that EVERYONE has gotten richer, it's just that the rich have gotten richer to a larger degree. The Keynesian model has failed all over Europe.

[@hagakure222]

How's that 'distributed' wealth system going in Venezuela? Billionaire dictators, a 'narco' state and 10 million refugees landing all over the world

[@copperpot5462]

The last 40 years government has taken the wealth and spent it on waste. Had government allowed wealthy people to keep their wealth, there would be more wealth to go around. Do you know why tax havens exist? Because government go after individual wealth like flies to shit. If you don't understand just look at the UK tax brackets where if you are considered wealthy you have to give up almost 50% of your income. All that money goes on pointless political power projects like the welfare system instead of being re-invested into the industry and the community.

[@theartfuldodger8609]

Swimmingly actually. The poor of the world have a much higher standard of living than ever before and unprecedented levels of people lifted out of poverty.

[@charvakaelysium2414]

It is possible that neither have the 'solution' here. Kinnock didn't have a chance to be tested but Friedman's ideas took root in the UK and have been given a chance. The result : a return to 19th century levels of poverty. His ideas might sound convincing but they don't work in the real world.

[@monkberrymoon4042]

Nineteenth century levels of poverty? I think you should take a closer look at the 19th century before you say that.

[@charvakaelysium2414]

@@monkberrymoon4042 I think you need to take a closer look at life for the poorest people in the UK. People sleeping on the streets, widespread use of food banks - this includes many people who are in work. A number of people have starved to death.

[@connorism69]

I think you missed the point. The 19th Century saw unprecedented rises in living standards for the common people. The poverty and destitution you refer to were the leftovers and manifestations of past mistakes and realities. When government control over the economy was much less, this allowed people to rise out of this, even if it has not yet rescued everyone. Regardless, it has a much stronger chance of doing so than do the policies of people naive enough to think you can legislate your way out of these problems.

[@charvakaelysium2414]

@@connorism69 The levels of poverty in the UK have increased dramatically during my life especially in recent years. The trickle down effect hasn't happened. The rich have got richer and destitution, which I never witnessed in my younger years, is now commonplace.

[@monkberrymoon4042]

@@charvakaelysium2414 1. It's difficult to imagine "a number of people starving to death" in a modern welfare state like Britain's. You would really have to try hard to avoid eating for that to happen. 2. I don't want to presume too much but, again, I don't think someone who understood Dickensian poverty would say that the modern poor are worse off. I mean, for crissakes, something like 85% of the lowest income quadrant have mobile phones and of course (apart from the hardcore destitute) the modern poor have access to a level of indoor plumbing that would make Karl Marx blush.

[@tnsocialist1257]

History has shown us all how full of shit Freedman was

[@unknownsword9042]

lol.

[@humushumus2219]

True. His economic politics have moved all wealth to the top and it's about to collapse our societies. Alternativly this wealth will consolidate (as they already do) and create dictatorships because this kind of injustice cannot exist in free societies.

[@copperpot5462]

How so? When you take wealth from the wealthy, there is no more wealth to go around. Quite simple. When government takes the wealth and distributes it, there are no more wealthy people to generate more wealth. Or to put it very very simply: WEALTH GENERATES MORE WEALTH. How many times does it need to be said?

[@ricoman7981]

Explain how and when. No one is correct 100% of the time but between you and Milton, my money is on Milton.

[@tnsocialist1257]

@@ricoman7981 look at the shit state of our country. 60% of Americans couldn't afford a $500 emergency without going into debt. The dream of home ownership has evaporated. Public schools are under attack. Healthcare is largely unaffordable. retirement was supposed to be comprised of pensions, Social Security, and investment. Pensions are gone and people don't have enough to live on, and the retirement age has risen while the life expectancy has declined.

[@thomasmorris8435]

You know this is pure jealousy because they're not in charge making about money tosses

[@lamson1990]

(Capitalist claps leftist)