Milton Friedman Speaks: Free Trade: Producer vs. Consumer

Milton Friedman speaks on free trade.
If free trade is so good, why is protectionism so popular? Part of the answer lies in a simple political principle - interests that are concentrated (those of the producer) are more politically effective than interests that are diffuse (those of the consumer). Protection does not create jobs or move goods; rather, it forces us to expend greater effort to get the goods we produce, since they cost more to produce at home than abroad. The balance of payments can take care of itself, provided we do not manipulate foreign exchange markets to put an artificial value on the dollar. The right solution is to dismantle systematically our own trade barriers and set an example for the rest of the world.
Check out our Facebook page here: / freetochoosenetwork
Visit our media website to find other programs here: freetochoosemedia.org/index.php
Connect with us on Twitter here: / freetochoosenet
Learn more about our company here: freetochoosenetwork.org/
Shop for related products here: www.freetochoose.net/
Stream from FreeToChoose.TV here: freetochoose.tv/

[@nicksundby]

Some people attend events simply to cough

[@harunsuaidi7349]

I'm not an expert of Economics, but man he is so smart. His arguments are so compelling he almost sound like trolling.

[@louiethegreater1]

You are correct, you know nothing about economics. Here is a good read for you. Not on the subject of economics by Friedman, but the economics of our funders. Here it is: " Opening America's Market - US Foreign Trade Policy Since 1776 " by Alfred E. Eckes, Sr. You will soon discover that Friedman is teaching Globalization of the worlds economy, His policies has brought nothing but ruin to the US citizen.

[@diogocoelho293]

​@@louiethegreater1 it globalization 1.1 bilion of people our lifted out of poverty in the last 20 years

[@elbedregal]

Greatest Speaker on Economics Ever!!!

[@alexandershephard7263]

The only problem with this video, is the low view count. If this was a popular as Nicki Minaj our country would be great!

[@juanpablomorbelli8167]

I guess Milton himself would simply say that the we shouldn't be against the market simply for giving the people what they want, rather than what we think is best for them lol

[@Capitalism11]

since 1990 Chile's poverty rate has been cut in half. That is what I call fair, and that's what I attribute to Milton Friedman.

[@FitPhysioTherapy]

No matter how many times I listen to Freedman he still blows me away all over again. That this man who so eloquently makes the case for liberty was not persuasive to the body politic is an ominous sign of our doom. I really doubt the case will ever be made more lucid and powerful. There is no one that can fill his shoes (and no one will fill the shoes of Anton Scalia on SCOTUS either),

[@YoungDespereaux]

You can try listening to his son, David D. Friedman. He seems to have inherited his father's eloquence.

[@katielow9990]

an eloquent psychopath is admirable I must admit

[@showylee1980]

FiT PT I can! if he wears a size 10....but no, the guys a genius.

[@FitPhysioTherapy]

showylee1980 I am quite sure Friedman doesn't wear a size 10. There maybe some very intelligent people that have a very similar stance on all pertinent sociopolitical positions as Friedman, even if they are not quite as brilliant - maybe Tom Sowell IDK? However, no one including Sowell is as eloquent at making the case or as quick with a well constructed retort to any attack by liberties adversaries.

[@FitPhysioTherapy]

James Dean Folly really? Forget Scalia for the moment (the more eminent emergence) - just link me to the source that makes the case for liberty as well as Friedman once did when you happen upon this erudite source of wisdom. However, I hope you dont mind if I refrain from holding my breath waiting in the interim?

[@newweaponsdc]

Milton Friedman is the greatest and most brilliant economy of the 20th century.

[@lynagy20]

Where is the modern day Milton Friedman? Instead I hear Jim Carrey on Real Time that we should advocate for socialism. Where are the reasonable mainstream voices on this conversation at the moment.

[@louiethegreater1]

Carrey advocates socialism, Friedman advocates globalism.

[@KwproductionINC]

my hero!!! Dont be hating on milton cuz he gets all the ladies!

[@rafolsmorales]

the depth of knowledge and insight is amazing. thanks for posting this!

[@Luxfer0000]

5:17 - 7:20, that's called "static" kids.....that's all we had back then.......and we where thankful for it.

[@abhilashkrishnan2833]

the person who coughed from start to end is a great example of the limitation of freedom. We have freedom to live our life but it should not affect others'freedom to life and happiness .

[@stephenparallox]

Friedman, Trump should watch from 20:40 on, we are in big trouble. Friedman was a genious!

[@erikkovacs3097]

If you've read his book "Art of the Deal" or watched the apprentice you would see that tariffs are a bargaining tactic not a long term strategy. It's basically we'll hurt ourselves a little to hurt you a whole lot more, let's make a trade deal.

[@Capitalism11]

.. I'll just quote an article right here "The percentage of Chileans with household incomes below the poverty line - defined as twice the cost of satisfying a person's minimal nutritional needs - fell from 45.1% in 1987 to 13.7% in 2006" like wise, "In 2006, Chile became the country with the highest nominal GDP per capita in Latin America." one question for you, does it bother you when poor people make more money?

[@guillermocrespo8144]

Simply extraordinary!

[@flixskinny]

Yes he was favour of creating jobs for the poor - and yes it is led by the profit motive. Who else is going to pay their salaries? you? me? the state? Chile has become a beacon of free trade with the highest literacy and wages in South America. The Pinochet revolution was exactly that and though many good people suffered horribly; to blame Friedman is a non-sequitor. Friedman got a one off chance; a carte blanche to design an entire countrys economic policy; he took it and he got it spot on,

[@ilovesudan]

Excellent Channel.

[@maambomumba6123]

Timely for our era!

[@ovp66223]

unregulated free trade will more or less equalize incomes. Those that are making more than an average worker across the world will see their salaries decrease (may take decades), while those well underpaid, will slowly see rising incomes. Why? Simple. The goods and services will be produced where labor is plentiful and cheapest (and government at least not over-bearing in regulation). What this means is the bounty the U.S. worker got in the mid and late 1900s will erode dramatically (started 30+ years ago, seeing plants of all types shutting down, leaving less jobs for more people = lower pay). It also means those third-world countries, at least some of them will become the new U.S. in that they'll have their boom decades. Then slowly, if still free-trading, long after you and I have passed away, those new U.S. countries will start to erode. Might be that a few generations from now, with the U.S. hitting new lows in goods produced (we are mostly a service economy now, meaning we're on the downside, like all the empires before us), and begin to build new factories and start producing goods again while watching an India implode via massive factory closings and job losses. Rinse and repeat. It is more or less inevitable, unfortunately, that if you are a wealthy country AND we have free trade, you will at some point in the near future, see your status slowly decline while other countries see theirs improve. I am not for unfettered free trade necessarily, I don't even know how that would play out (never happened in the history of the world, at least not globally, only in small local enclaves), but I am also aware that simply hoarding production via ever-rising tariffs or whatever other tools are available, is just whistling past the graveyard. The only way to start building back up (improving) is to drop precipitously from the apex of quality of life. Does anyone really believe we could keep soaring incomes (from the 40s, 50s and 60s) soaring indefinitely? If so, a shoddy car made in Detroit would now cost well over $100,000 to support the pay of employees making $120 to tighten some bolts or too press buttons on a machining apparatus that is now computer controlled. I consider myself Libertarian, but those dreaming of fat paychecks forever are dreaming when free-trade is involved, the production moves to where labor and materials are the cheapest and most plentiful (hint, that isn't the U.S. now or Germany or England or France or Canada).

[@marsrey6840]

WOW! "in the name for prosperity and world peace let us move towards free trade"

[@jewgashthebunkerman1721]

Basically: More for less is better. Free trade is how to achieve that goal.

[@CANmoPants]

Great! Unionized workers benefit at the expense of non-unionized, low-skilled domestic workers and consumers. Help the relatively well off at the expense of the poor.

[@shariqsyed123]

brilliant

[@leokemboi5355]

His views will transcend beyond Generations

[@Aaronisification]

killer speaker.

[@payday0023]

18:54 - not amused Love me some Milton Friedman!

[@Willsturd]

So the person saving up money and actually buying the fields is not labor? The people buying the equipment for use is not labor? How about all the shipping and retailing? How about insurance? How about the people having to supply that field with the corn seeds, water, and fertilizer? It doesn't just come out of nowhere. Somebody has to work and do that. You cannot just have that owner worker mentality. The real world is much more complicated.

[@wamatzeit]

Mr.Friedman answer this question: what can be done to compete with China

[@williamevans9426]

I take it that President Trump and his associates are not fans of Friedman (given his liking for tariffs on imports)?

[@Willsturd]

What? That makes no sense. First what is labor? Are the employees labor? Are the employers labor? Are the investors labor? Who is labor? Then when you define who the labor is how are you going to give all the wealth to one group of people?

[@riccardopusceddu6232]

Making steel is an equally productive industry in both China and the US. The technology is the same, the energy input is the same. the only difference is in the wages of the workers. So it's true that if we import less still from China, the Chinese will have less money to buy US products. However the American steel workers will have more so they'll offset the foreigners who have less. They'll be spending and investing in American products instead of letting the Chinese do that. Agricultural enterprises will produce less produce for import and they'll shrink but that will make people who previously worked in agriculture try other businesses, maybe producing TV sets and cars for those very steel workers who are better off because of steel import tariffs from China. The money stays in the US instead of dripping to China.

[@aminuabdulmanaf4434]

You're ignoring manufacturers who use steel in making their products, how are they going to compete with foreign firms who get steel cheaper from other markets? how about those who have to pay more for things made from steel?

[@Willsturd]

Why should you decide how much profit goes into labor? Shouldn't the people who risked everything deserve the profit? And most of the times, the profit goes back into reinvestments to assure the profits next time. Those assurements are there because of competition. In 2005 all companies in the US made 1 penny profit to every 1 dollar sold. 2013 has even been more marginalized. The people working don't risk anything.

[@niceandwise1474]

He is brilliant and a very persuasive speaker.. but unfortunately these precautions can be in favour of strong countries and mega corporations.. and will crush the small countries and small businesses..

[@dmo4scho364]

Nice and Wise the free market my man... no regulation that by nature will favor the big businesses. The better business will always win in the end in a true free market system.

[@Willsturd]

Yes, but then I asked you about all the labor that goes into setting this up, into retailing, and into investments. That money doesn't appear out of no where. You only acknowledge the labor on the land. I'm pretty sure there is alot more labor than that.....

[@riccardopusceddu6232]

His statement that hurting each other is worse than us hurting the Japanese is questionable because the balance of powers between us and them will gradually shift, this way, towards them.

[@Willsturd]

Do not get me wrong, not all chinese have been raised out of poverty, just like even though America is the richest country in the world we still struggle with poverty everyday. 30 years ago, they had to worry about malnutrition, now they are worrying about obesity. That is still not a good thing, but that is a dramatic change, especially to those once destitute farmers.

[@marsrey6840]

wow nice; "as a consumer the more dumping the better" hahahaha good

[@Capitalism11]

Are you saying that the people of chile are worse off then before the Chicago boys? How are people starving when the poverty rate is declining, which, unless you are confused, is "twice the cost of satisfying a person's minimal nutritional needs" Facts don't like, no one said capitalism caused equality, but it does cause prosperity, and if oyu deny that you are crazy

[@Willsturd]

This is not a zero sum economy. We shipped jobs over to China because they were cheaper and more efficient and creating things than the U.S had. First they had no minimum wage for a long time and they had very little regulation. We also helped out the Chinese by raising a few hundred million of them out of destitution. While that happen many americans changed jobs. It was a reallocation of resources.

[@Willsturd]

Are you kidding me? China was starving. Those people did resort to cannibalism. The 30 years mark was the estimation, but when you look at it, before they opened up late 70's early 80's they were starving. People were dying of famine all the time. There were only two times in human history the human population dipped. 1 during the black plague, the other during chinese communism. 70 million people starved to death. To ignore this fact is ludicris.

[@flixskinny]

sorry louie, try actually listening to this guy. He was no fan of the rich or corporations. He railed against welfarism (with the exception of some direct action) and subsidies because it actually hurts the poorest in society in the short term and bankrupts the country in the long term. He was a humanist and repeatedly stated the rights of the individual trumps all and you shouldn't just steal and waste money via government, and that includes the needy superpoor and the greedy superrich.

[@zarathustra6712]

It blows my mind how a brilliant economist as Milton Friedman could not see the loss of jobs and wealth destruction if domestic production is wiped out by other countries.

[@Willsturd]

Yes they did starve. You are completely ignoring the facts. I am chinese, my parents made me read about MaoZedong. Are you really going to deny that 70 million people starved to death under Mao? Just type up how many Chinese died under communism. You have numbers ranging from 20 million to 70 million. Then when you go the the world population, you figure out it was closer to 70 million. We cannot be arguing over such a known fact...

[@riccardopusceddu6232]

Ok, we should concentrate in what we do best but what if the Chinese will do everything better than us? Same quality but cheaper? Where could American workers turn to? Maybe they could try to make better quality steel but then the Chinese could do the same so the Americans will be back to the start.

[@KaiserinAstrid]

I'm still waiting for an argument for free trade that doesn't rely on completely absurd assumptions about the world such as perfect currency markets, frictionless labour markets, capital immobility(required for comparative advantage) and many other. Otherwise, I usually agree with Friedman.

[@Willsturd]

You are aware that 20% of Americans have the capability of being in your 1% by selling their houses right? This includes everybody in San Francisco that lives in a half million dollar house or more. Also the majority of the 1% was not born in that 1%. Majority are people above the age of 45 that worked their entire lives to be in that category. They do not live in luxury otherwise they wouldn't be considered in the 1%, and even more still are there only for a year by selling their house.

[@Willsturd]

I never told you they weren't communist. I told you their economy wasn't communist and they were as capitalistic as america. Then I said politically they try to retain their communism to have a greater control of their people. You seem to be selectivly reading my comments to try and weed out something you disagree with. Just read the entire comment and you will understand what China's situation is. Also, what the hell does aircraft carriars have to do with anything? Please be relevent.

[@Willsturd]

They never announced that they were not communist, but you have to be completely ignorant of the facts to say their economy was communist and they are centrally planned.... which you said. Communist government is not ideal for foreign investments. There is a reason why American companies are now pulling out of China and going into India... Its because the government set in labor laws. You seem never to look at the facts, but rather talk from ideals. Ideals are nice, but they aren't facts.

[@riccardopusceddu6232]

$3 per individual to subsidise American maritime industry and $25,000 workers and companies in the field would gain $15,000 per year. Is that bad? Yes if they'll spend that money to buy foreign goods and services and investments but very good if they'll use it to buy Americans good or services or invest in companies that employ American workers. Is this line of thought flawed?

[@Willsturd]

What you advocate for is isolationist. Americans lost a few jobs, but we raised countless millions of Chinese out of poverty. How is that a bad thing. You want us to close our borders from the world just like in the Great depression? Keep everything Local? If the US cant make cheap goods at a cheap price, then why waste precious resources to keep making it when China can do it for half the price? Are the laws of the free market getting to you now?

[@charronfamilyconnect]

WillsTurd, in reply to your comment, "If the US cant make cheap goods at a cheap price, then why waste precious resources to keep making it when China can do it for half the price.". How are we saving resources when so much cheap shit is made in China that we throw away into landfills more often due to the lack of durability of the goods. Talk about a waste of money and resources. If we returned to making quality goods that last longer we would save so many resources, and waste. You get what you pay for. If you pay cheap you will get cheap (crap).

[@riokriok2863]

free market with out control we see the results to day of the rhetoric of gentlemen look around you 30 year's ego and to day this rubbish capitalism