Facebook & Twitter

To follow BoreMe on Facebook, click 'Like'

To follow BoreMe on Twitter, click 'twitter'

Follow BoreMe on Twitter
Tags

Ads, Products & BusinessEconomyEducationLecturesMilton FriedmanMoralityPolitics & SocietyQuestionsEconomists

Know something about this post? Email us

Report fault

<< Back to listing

Milton Friedman - Questions concerning morality and capitalismMilton Friedman - Questions concerning morality and capitalism

(8:33) American economist Milton Friedman in 1978, answers questions from students at Stanford University. Milton Friedman was an economic advisor to Ronald Reagan. His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention.

You are welcome to
comment as a guest,
but registering gives you
added benefits

Add your comment

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest:  (943 days ago)
Every thing you need to know about Friedman's economics can be summed up in two words: 'Augusto Pinochet'!
Original comment
Every thing you need to know about Friedman's economics can be summed up in two words: 'Augusto Pinochet'!
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: Beau Guest (949 days ago)
Great for showing this: proof positive that the likes of Freedman, Greenspan, Thatcher et al are/were simply... stupid. The only conspiracy in this world is the one whereby the stupid majority allow the stupid minority to rule. More proof? Goldman Sachs STILL exists! Go figure.
Original comment
Great for showing this: proof positive that the likes of Freedman, Greenspan, Thatcher et al are/were simply... stupid. The only conspiracy in this world is the one whereby the stupid majority allow the stupid minority to rule. More proof? Goldman Sachs STILL exists! Go figure.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


    
Guest:  (949 days ago)
Friedman is right,it's why we are supposed to have the rule of law to decide such cases.They are not as clear cut as this young man thinks.Friedman never said it was right or wrong ,just that the blame is not often where you think it should be.Big govt. destoys the rule of law,thats why Goldman etc. get away with it...ask Obama...
Original comment
Friedman is right,it's why we are supposed to have the rule of law to decide such cases.They are not as clear cut as this young man thinks.Friedman never said it was right or wrong ,just that the blame is not often where you think it should be.Big govt. destoys the rule of law,thats why Goldman etc. get away with it...ask Obama...
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



WalterEgo WalterEgo (949 days ago)
I don't think the 'cost per life' is really the point. It depends on whether the $13 fix acceptably eats into Ford's profit (most of which goes to only a few in the company), or if it's Ford's bottom line. If it's Ford's bottom line, then Friedman has a point, otherwise it's greed at the expense of some lives.
Original comment
I don't think the 'cost per life' is really the point. It depends on whether the $13 fix acceptably eats into Ford's profit (most of which goes to only a few in the company), or if it's Ford's bottom line. If it's Ford's bottom line, then Friedman has a point, otherwise it's greed at the expense of some lives.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: gskuc (689 days ago)
In a free market, if any company or labor group behaves badly in the minds of enough of their customers - who are free to be informed and possibly influenced by various advocacy groups - those customers are free to take their purchasing power to competitors, and the offending company or labor group will thereby be financially penalized or even wiped out of existence. If private sector monopolies develop, we have anti-monopoly laws to deal with them and restore market competition which favors customers.
Original comment
In a free market, if any company or labor group behaves badly in the minds of enough of their customers - who are free to be informed and possibly influenced by various advocacy groups - those customers are free to take their purchasing power to competitors, and the offending company or labor group will thereby be financially penalized or even wiped out of existence. If private sector monopolies develop, we have anti-monopoly laws to deal with them and restore market competition which favors customers.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: fatass (491 days ago)
Latest comment: Michael something or other, maybe Michael Fat ass
Original comment
Latest comment: Michael something or other, maybe Michael Fat ass
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest:  (542 days ago)
Bullshit argumentation from Friedman. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect that customers purchasing complex hi tech goods like a car familiarise themselves with the full technical spec of the machine and those of other comparable vehicles. There is no way that the average consumer could possibly know about the fact that Ford had saved money on the design as they certainly would never have willingly made clear to their customers that they had consciously decided to leave out a key safety feature. The real question is nothing to do with that decision, but rather why leaving that feature out was an option left open to them by the USA's legal system. The crossing the road analogy is also crap, nobody has sold me the street and even if it's badly designed it won't blow up and kill my family.
Original comment
Bullshit argumentation from Friedman. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect that customers purchasing complex hi tech goods like a car familiarise themselves with the full technical spec of the machine and those of other comparable vehicles. There is no way that the average consumer could possibly know about the fact that Ford had saved money on the design as they certainly would never have willingly made clear to their customers that they had consciously decided to leave out a key safety feature. The real question is nothing to do with that decision, but rather why leaving that feature out was an option left open to them by the USA's legal system. The crossing the road analogy is also crap, nobody has sold me the street and even if it's badly designed it won't blow up and kill my family.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: fatass (491 days ago)
that dumb ass student is the fat man that films the conspiracy docs in the us, can't think of his fat name right now but he's a massive fat ass now.
Original comment
that dumb ass student is the fat man that films the conspiracy docs in the us, can't think of his fat name right now but he's a massive fat ass now.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


Zap United  (opens in new window)
Related Posts