Milton Friedman was a Nobel Prize winning economist who lived from 1912-2006. His economic philosophies relied heavily on economic freedom and laissez-faire capitalism. He was the economic adviser to the Reagan Administration, and made numerous contributions to the field of economics during his lifetime.
Upon hearing that he was the economic adviser to Reagan, many may write him off as "right wing", but I encourage you not to do so. He self-identifies as a "liberal" because he says he believes in individual liberty, but does not agree with the definition of "liberal" to mean "being liberal with someone else's money." He also provided critique to both Republicans and Democrats alike, saying that politicians may have opinions and beliefs on paper, but as soon as they take office they tend towards a philosophy of "making policies that seem good, but may not actually be good for the country."
In today's political climate, I think it is important for everyone to at least listen to what Milton Friedman had to say. During the recent election cycle, there was a democratic candidate who ran on a platform of "democratic socialism", and he got a lot of support, mainly from my generation. There are a great amount of videos available on Youtube of Milton Friedman giving talks, mainly during the 1970s, that are still very applicable today. In many cases, he provides a retort against socialist policies that I think any self-proclaimed "socialist" should listen to. You may not agree with him, but at least broaden your horizons to learn about why the policies that seem so good on paper may not actually work in practice.
What I really like about listening to Milton is that he is very objective and never blames people for their various actions. The notion is that people will, for the most part, do whatever is logical when put in a certain economic system, and sometimes this can cause them to want certain things that may not actually be good for them. He brings most of his arguments back to economic freedom, and asserts that government attempts to solve problems, however noble, often result in things just getting worse.
Below I will link some of my favorite videos of Milton Friedman, in which he discusses topics that are still quite relevant today. I encourage you to watch them with an open mind, as he was a brilliant man who deserves our consideration.
The Myth of Social Security
I've talked about this before: Social Security is a bad idea that seemed good at the time, but the house of cards is starting to collapse. At the end of the above video, Milton talks about how Social Security has been good to its beneficiaries in the past, but it will have problems in the future because the number of beneficiaries is growing but the number of people in the workforce (i.e. the people paying into it) is declining. He said this back in the 1970s, and it is coming true today.
Health Care and the Food and Drug Administration
Government's role in the healthcare industry has been a hot-button issue for the past several years. Friedman asserts that government regulatory agencies such as the FDA tend to do more harm than good. In the case of the FDA, they make it extremely difficult and costly to bring a new drug to market, which can potentially prevent a life-saving drug from helping people. He admits that the FDA has probably prevented harmful drugs from reaching the market as well, but do the benefits outweigh the costs? At the end of the video, he says that all "universal" healthcare would do is increase wait times at hospitals and make the quality of healthcare worse. Instead of government-funded health insurance, he hints at a "negative income tax", which would basically give lower income citizens a lump-sum of money for them to use as they please. He goes into the concept of "negative income tax" in greater detail in other videos, but the premise is basically that it should replace all government programs geared towards helping the poor. As we know, the negative income tax has not yet come to fruition.
More Laws = More Criminals
In this video, Friedman points out the somewhat obvious but often forgotten fact that if you want a nation of law-abiding citizens, then simply give them fewer laws to break! He claims that there are certain laws people universally follow because people agree that these laws are "moral". An example is stealing money from your neighbor: most would agree that we shouldn't do this. Other laws, however, are not based on morality, such as laws requiring a store owner to buy a business license from the government. People have a greater propensity to break these laws because they do not see the moral reasoning for them. If the only reason people follow a law is for fear that they will get caught, then they tend to break the laws whenever they feel they will not be caught. By instituting laws such as these, the government effectively turns law-abiding citizens into criminals.
Making Drugs Illegal Creates More Problems than it Solves
When you think about the people who are currently lobbying for the legalization of marijuana, you may be surprised to find that they have an ally in the economic adviser to Reagan. In the above video, Milton continues with the philosophy that more laws create immoral behavior by applying it to the prohibition of drugs. When you make drugs illegal, you do not stop people from doing drugs, you just turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. Towards the end of the video, Friedman says a very important thing: the role of government should be to protect people from other people, not protect people from themselves. People should be free to make their own choices, whether good or bad.
To me, the question over whether drugs should be legalized really comes down to what kind of people we want in our prisons. As many know, American prisons are overpopulated, and many people in those prisons are there because they were caught either possessing or selling drugs. Should these people be in prison? The kinds of people I want in prison are the kinds of people who would do harm to me or people I care about: murderers, robbers, rapists, etc. Someone who gets high in their living room while they watch TV and eat Cheetos doesn't really affect me at all. Sure, this person may want to get high instead of doing something useful for society, but they aren't going to be any more useful in jail, now are they? They are more of a burden to me in jail, because then all the sudden my tax dollars are paying their rent! Sure, there are certainly other drawbacks to people doing drugs, but the fact of the matter is that any government efforts to enforce drug laws simply don't work, and only waste valuable law enforcement resources.
Legal and Illegal Immigration
Illegal Immigration is a hot topic today, and it was a hot topic back in the 1970s as well. In this video Friedman addresses that immigration into the U.S. used to be "free" before 1914, people could come to America and become citizens without a lengthy citizenship process. Many people think that this was a good thing, but that we simply can't have "free" immigration now, because there are various government programs such as social security and welfare, which make immigration a burden on taxpayers. Milton suggests that immigration is only good for America if it is illegal, because then the immigrants don't qualify for such programs and provide a valuable labor force for jobs that many Americans don't want to do.
Trade Tariffs Are Bad for an Economy
This is an issue that might anger many Donald Trump supporters, but Friedman argues that imposing tariffs (taxes on imports) in an attempt to help American workers only holds the entire economy back. The argument for tariffs is simple: by imposing import taxes, you make it more profitable to purchase goods made at home, which keeps jobs at home as well. The problem with this, as Friedman points out, is that the consumer of said goods and/or services is hurt because the prices will be higher. The important concept he sheds light on is that of the visible vs. the invisible: the visible are the people who directly lose their jobs as a result of a product being imported. In the example of this video, these are the steel workers of the U.S., whose jobs would be lost as a result of importing steel from Japan. However, as a result of Japan selling steel to the U.S., Japan would in turn buy goods and services, quite possibly in the U.S., which would increase demand for other goods and services that the U.S. exports. So steel workers (the visible) may suffer, but other workers in various industries (the invisible) would benefit. The problem is that the visible workers are a more potent political force, as they can be easily identified. The only counter-argument I have for this is: "what if there comes a time when the U.S. isn't good at making anything, and we have nothing to export?" I guess in that case the country will collapse...so let's hope that doesn't happen (or isn't already happening).
Socialism Results in Totalitarianism Because it is Grounded in Force
Here's one that will anger the Bernie supporters: socialism is inherently based on force, and socialist governments will always become corrupt and totalitarian. How is socialism force? Well, let's look at the example of taxing the rich in order to increase government funds, which they can use for social programs which supposedly help poor people. What is a tax? Well, it's the government forcing you to give them money. You can't "opt out" of a tax, and any attempts to do so will first get you some friendly letters from the IRS, followed by some unfriendly visits from men in uniform should you not do anything. In this video, Friedman suggests that even though many socialist governments had leaders with good intentions, the fundamental "evil" of using force overrides any good intentions that were present in the founding of said governments. Likewise, capitalism is based on "choice", no one forces you to choose which products to buy or which job to do. Because of this, even though capitalist societies are often filled with deceitful and greedy people, the overarching "good" of choice overrides any evils present in the system. In many other videos Friedman gets into the details of why taxing the rich does not actually help the poor, but it's important to realize that the fundamental framework of socialism is based on force, and anything based on force naturally becomes violent and free of things like "human rights" and "choice."
Equal Pay for Equal Work Laws Only Hurt the People They Try to Help
Here's one that might anger feminists! Friedman was an equal-opportunity offender, but I digress. One might think that if there were a group of people who were discriminated against purely for being part of that group (women, minorities, etc.), then it would be good for these oppressed people if the government passed laws forcing businesses to pay tthem the same wages if they did the same work as a group that was not oppressed. Seems good, right? Well, as Friedman points out, it actually isn't good for the oppressed people.
As an example, say a strong independent woman is up against an equally qualified man to get a job. To make things juicy, let's assume that there is a sexist man making the hiring decision who believes women are inferior to men at doing this particular job. Here's where it gets interesting: if you force the hiring manager to pay the two people the same wage, you are more or less guaranteeing that the woman does not get the job. If the hiring manager is sexist, and he is forced to pay the woman the same as the man, then what incentive does he have to hire the woman? None. Now, if he were able to pay the woman less, then it would benefit him to hire the woman, because she would be able to provide the same service for a lower cost. He could still, of course, hire the man, but now his sexism costs him, because he has to pay the man more.
It's a somewhat counter-intuitive concept, but if you are part of an oppressed group then it is actually in your best interest to work for less. This way, you can get a job, acquire skills and work your way up the company ladder (if you are truly good at the job, that is). Is it unfair? Yes. But that's how people of past generations have made a better future for their various groups: by working for less and acquiring capital in the form of money and skills. If they are truly as good as their non-oppressed counterparts, then the market will eventually see that and pay them what they deserve.
Conclusion
Milton Friedman had a lot to say over his long and distinguished lifetime, and he is definitely worth giving a listen. You may not agree with some of the things he says, but that does not make him any less worthwhile. The crux of most of his points and views is that free markets generally bring about the best results for everyone involved, and government attempts to regulate the free market, no matter how noble, often end up causing more harm than good. This may be an unpopular belief, or one that is difficult to accept, but he had quite a lot of knowledge on the topic, and backed up his points with excellent evidence.
