Milton Friedman - Regulation In A Free Society

A rock > John Maynard Keynes

Walter Block showed that there are legal precedents from the late 1800s that prevent 3rd party lawsuits against large polluters. The reasoning is, these polluters serve a greater service to the community than the inconveniences it creates. Which may have been true in some cases. One case was a woman that lived near a power plant sued because the clothes that she hung out on the line would get soot on them. But these precedents are applied to today's pollution problems. Nice eh?

Liability > Regulation

Motorcycles are unsafe. Everyone knows they are and people buy them anyway. People know cigarettes are unsafe, but they smoke anyway. People will and should do what they want to do. Like you say, no government control needed.

It doesn't even take manipulation, just a lack of knowledge on the part of the consumer. Do we really want to live in a country where we have to research every chocolate bar we buy to check the manufacturer doesn't sell poison? Commerce would grind to a halt. The whole conversation is retarded, these 'libertarians' would be out on the streets protesting within a week if their asinine ideas were ever implemented.

Safe products>unsafe products. Clean air>toxic air. People with brains>libertarians.

So you think without the FDA, chocolate companies would start poisoning their customers because what? It's good for business? Ok.

I think certain businesses would start cutting costs to the extent that dodgy products would become much more common on the market, yes. I also think the sky is blue and that homo sapiens generally walk on two legs.

His 2 year old nephew probably understands the principles of Keynes better than you.

Hats off to Friedman yet again, he made it very clear in the last 30 seconds and smashed the debate. 

The problem without safety regulation is that the rest of society usually ends up paying the the bill on the medical bill taking care of the person who got hurt. This moral obligation we cannot get around. Milton is unrealistic on this one.

Information symmetry is a necessity for a system without safety regulations

Jeepers, the first time in my life, I can actually say

Mr Friedman, you are some what wrong

just like 1 minute in, he talks about taxing based on car emissions, however by doing this, it makes it very difficult to sell your car to raise enough money to but a newer green/ more efficient car. As a result of your car, in which you are trying to sell, is now worth less as a result of the higher level of tax imposed.

Supposed libertarian Trump fans are losing it when Gary Johnson advocates a carbon tax, while Milton Friedman supports a similar concept. Hey, Trump fans how about you go through all the non-libertarian policies Donald Trump is advocating before you start attacking Johnson for this grey area libertarian-ish policy.

Nice try, Milton, but you're full of shit. He obviously hasn't read Adam Smith's, "The Wealth of Nations."

If you choose not to have an airbag in your car, get in an accident, then run up high medical bills, it is the rest of us whose insurance premiums will rise, so WRONG, Mr. Friedman, not having airbags also has an effect on the rest of us.

Thanks prof jen.

Trump is the most anti libertarian president ever, yet, his fanbase is libertarian. Either they are all super rich or super stupid.

Mr Trump seems to have the same views as it pertains to gov regulations!

The do-Gooders have turned the USA into a police state. We should kill all the Do-Gooders!

What was missed was that if no regulation, individual citizens would be at risk while industry adapted. smh. sad

This makes me think of the insanity rooms in biohazard the Game. where confused individuals chase after your with syringes.

I don't know. I'm thinking Melton's never going to lose an argument! Wouldn't it be great if everybody was that smart!

damn he destroyed every leftist in the last 30 seconds

The last 60 seconds is a holy moly moment of brilliance.

Carbon taxes are gross. You can't assign a value to carbon emissions because the economic cost is far from measurable. There is no causal relation that can assign a value to carbon emissions because the attributions of climate change are not clear.

This can be measured for other chemicals however.

I agree. There are situations in which pricing externalities causes markets to function more efficiently

Gotta love Friedman, a way better figure than todays right wingers (looking at you Ben Shapiro)

This was back when two people with opposing views could kick back and have respectful conversations without calling each other hateful things and storming off the stage.
But Donohue was a good liberal. I have a lot of respect for him because of it. Instead of echoing bumpersticker phrases, he could maintain a conversation by backing up his beliefs with enough confidence to listen to opposing views. And had the grace to allow his audience to decide who is right. I can't think of anyone who would do that today.
But then again, he was talking to the great Milton Friedman.

Ever tried light mayonnaise with cucumbers and tomatoes?

Ever heard of a quote "Regulation is not en education"? US regulation does not say use less notes cause I feel like in your composition there are too many notes or you only have ten seconds to answer a question, like on political debate. When you have set of requirements to pass a state exam, the person hiring this employee promises to rescue him or her from the Government. When you take away jobs from people by over-regulating things. Say you have rocket science, where there is no max driving speed, then you are free to design it anyway you like and wish, as long as it is not going to explode. When you create safety regulations that are outrageous and statistically incorrect, like air bags causing more damage than good, then car manufacturer can make a car that will explode on the road. In any case, you have to know who you are fighting against. If you are trying to experience your power over someone who is a big corporation and has its own voters, like its customers... Government will act as the nerd trying to prove you that they care about your safety and everyone else is violent. China made ton of money on production saying we will take care of the damages we have done later, like when the economy is doing well, India said the same thing, except Indians are a bit more liberal and they would want clean food, clean air and clean water. Car manufacturers today build hybrid cars that are cleaner on the money of dirty air, dirty water and coal energy, etc... And we can all afford buying it. Those who stayed loyal to their values ended up being poor and mind disabled on the mercy of hospitals. If we look at what we have done, like the amount of the people with health issues, we will understand that with the sophistication and the right investments, we could have had the hybrid cars from the start and better energy technologies. How do we know this? The past data shows. Who does not know the history? The "Young" Capitalists that believed everything evolves around Capital, therefore now you have Bastiat's broken fallacy, there Physicists matter, Astrologists matters, whether broadcasts matter, building sturdier housing matters... So insurance driven economy cares about the time that it takes to make money. Whether the gain or the loss was bigger, it does not belong to questioning. Anyways, something that the "Young" Armenians have "secretly" experienced for a short bit.

I am not agree with you Pro Friedman .. good quality of products is mission of regulation from government .. car without pollution is good quality product but car with pollution is bad product.. did you eat burger with bacteria and put chemicals to clean it on your cost or you should have a good product at first

He makes no sense. The dude would be saying in the industrial revolution to let the capitalists work children und age of 12 for 16 hours a day without being able to use the bathroom. As he would put it, it was a voluntary decision of their to join in the 2 party agreement. Selfish prick.

Milton made a strong case for carbon tax.

I can't look at that condescending smile without daydreaming about hitting a dead man.

Do a logical thought experiment with me. Follow Miltons economic and political ideas to their logical end. Dive into that rabbit hole until you hit bottom and you end up with a dystopian society of "voluntary" indentured servitude". You'll have a society ran by corporations for stockholders and no one else.
The poor will be so destitute they will be slaves just for the necessities to sustain life.

Milton proposes a 'Carbon Tax' initiative; a system that would, by and large, allow the wealthy to buy the goods they can afford but limit the goods that low- and lower-class consumers cannot... an elitist method to limit the ability of the poor to exercise the same rights and privilege's the upper class can enjoy more easily and unrestricted. Perhaps the 'Carbon Tax' initiative should be based on income rather than the consumable object; thereby, placing the burden equally across all income levels fairly; taking in disposable income as a factor. Consumers of products by a large are not always looking for efficiency in the product they demand; a hair dryer or coffee pot, a range or microwave appliance, a refrigerator or deep freezer. If manufacturers focused more on carbon efficiency, products across all levels of manufacturing would benefit; manufacturers would have to focus on the largest segment of consumer demands that drives revenue and profits. But manufacturers who dismiss technological advantages put the burden on adaptation and product adopting onto consumers who can afford it in its early stage of release; such as Apple Products and iPhones, and Telsa with its cars and suvs, all for niche consumers. This too can apply to air travel; here commercial airliners must continually look to efficiency improvements but not limit consumer's ability to fly cheaply; we can apply this to bus and rail systems as well. Toyota and Honda created hybrid cars that only lower-middle class consumers could afford, and solar energy panels for homes are only achievable to home owners who can afford the long term costs, while some home owners with limited or fixed income face leans and foreclosures in some programs that victimize them in poorly outlined deals. Carbon Tax is a measure and initiative that should only be enforced onto companies and manufacturers, but forced to create product designs that create cost competitiveness in scales of economy to reach all consumer segments equally and fairly; at price levels that all consumers can benefit from without unfair pricing strategies. Therefore, the cost of implementing a Carbon Tax initiative should be require that higher income earners share an equal proportion of the debt to bring the technology down before required the poor to suffer from it while others of higher income can absorb it without economic hardship. In auto manufacturing, safety should be a requirement in the production of all of its base model cars; no frills but safety as the prevailing feature, and without undue burden to those within the income level who benefit from buying those cars. This means, poorer, lower-class consumers can at the very minimum buy safety that all benefit from equally. As consumer spending increases, those who develop greater buying power can then buy cars with features that go beyond safety; from safety to added luxury features. Therefore, safety is the bottom line that all cars and autos must focus on first, then added bonus features that consumers can afford to buy. This goes for consumable electronic home appliances; where energy efficiency is first built into the unit, then added bonus features are added as consumer spending increases. But all base model appliances share the same efficiency standards. The burden must be placed on companies and manufacturers to scale up efficiency standards, and consumers must not be held accountable for it. As technology drives innovations, companies benefit in delivering goods that comply with government interventions. However, if government intervention does not promote manufacturers to implement change, they face losses in revenue as consumers move to other brands that do take advantage of innovation; thereby, allowing consumers to put pressure on companies and manufacturers to comply. Therefore, companies would have a vested interest to make sure that efficiency products are made that appeal to a broader market range of consumers.

damn this guy just created the cap and trade system in the 70s

What were/what would have been Friedman's views on the two natural monopolies, electricity and water? Particularly electricity. History has shown that without regulation, competition simply can't get off the ground because of economies of scale squeezing players out before they begin. Regulation has therefore enabled, not hindered, the liberalised energy market....which almost seems a paradox.

"Old cars are less safe than new cars". And regulations make it pay to keep the old ones longer.

i think what prof. miltion friedman dosent understand that regulation takes place when a baby is born.
a good mother always goes against the will of the baby for his/her own good. so a goverment should act as a parent.

He had to put up w that dolt Donahooo. The libs never change. Leave the buying, selling and marketing to the consumer and manufacturer. Quit buying their product because you don't like it, it's unsafe, etc. They will change, we force them to change.

Was the intro song sampled for a Beyonce song?

“If I want to protect myself then I will have to do it at my expense.”

Wish that was a widespread belief these days. Too many people expect the government to protect them for free.

Businesses LOVE regulations. The companies that make the airbags are very happy about these laws. THAT’s why we have many of the regulations we have today - follow the money. Those who are profiting from that regulation are likely the cause of it. It’s not the government vs business - they are working together against us!

Milton is a hypocrite because he completely ignores the horrors of those 200 years and the lack of freedoms and the government interventions that made America boom like how it did.

Government is slavery.

You want proof that our society has been systematically dumbed down.... try to imagine such a segment on nighttime television today.

In most cases, regulations are not necessary because there are already laws in place to punish any person or entity that causes harm either purposely or negligently. Why impose regulations on those who haven't broken any laws? That's what happens. Instead of punishing an entity for causing harm by polluting something, we impose regulations paid for by everyone including those that don't pollute! I am currently trying to expand my massage business to California and in order to operate in some cities there, I have to pay thousands of non refundable dollars to apply for a license so the government can monitor my business practices. Their stated purpose is to prevent illegal massage places that promote prostitution, participate in human trafficking, prevent spread of pathogens and many other things that a business might engage in. The result is that if I don't participate in any of those harmful practices, I have already been punished for it through the tax while in reality, there are already laws against those things. If a business is guilty of those things, then make them pay for it in fines and or prosecution and stop penalizing the businesses that abide by the law before they even are open for business! All these regulations do is give politicians and bureaucrats power to manipulate whatever they see fit and prevent new competition from pushing the established. One city literally told me that I would have to pay $11,000 for the approval process and I would most likely be denied because there are already a certain amount of Massage establishments in town. The kicker is that most of those establishments are engaged in the illegal activities they say they are trying to prevent! So the regulations don't even work anyway!