Latest / Gil I Am / Milton Friedman on the Phil Donahue Show in 1979

Transcript

Milton Friedman on the Phil Donahue Show in 1979 · Gil I Am

0:00
Speaker 1: I'm pleased to present the number one selling book in America,
0:04
Speaker 1: Free to Choose. It's number one on the New York
0:07
Speaker 1: Times bestseller list, and I ought to know. And it
0:11
Speaker 1: is written by the Nobel Laureate, a man who's will
0:15
Speaker 1: never be accused of making economics confusing, A man who
0:20
Speaker 1: has a reputation for not only saying what he thinks,
0:23
Speaker 1: but writing what he thinks as well, as he has
0:25
Speaker 1: done in this most.
0:26
Speaker 2: Important book titled Free to Choose.
0:28
Speaker 1: Please welcome the Nobel Laureate in Economics, Milton Friedman. Right
1:45
Speaker 1: here he comes again, Milton Friedman. And boy does he
1:48
Speaker 1: make an entrance now, because this is a blockbuster book, uh,
1:53
Speaker 1: Free to Choose, which not surprisingly features a very uh attractive,
2:00
Speaker 1: flattering professorial picture of our guest on the front. We
2:05
Speaker 1: a feminists can only wonder what would we can only
2:09
Speaker 1: wonder how they would respond to this, the fact that
2:12
Speaker 1: the book is co authored by Professor Freeman's wife, Rose.
2:16
Speaker 1: And to what location do you suppose she has been relegated?
2:22
Speaker 3: You've got that wrong, don't you know that the best
2:24
Speaker 3: always comes last?
2:26
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, let's let's go over this now.
2:36
Speaker 4: And you have to admit the chiefs prettier.
2:38
Speaker 1: You certainly do have to admit that it's not difficult
2:41
Speaker 1: to admit that at all, as a matter of fact,
2:42
Speaker 1: that you do seem to have it all, Professor Freeman,
2:46
Speaker 1: if you just take a personalment aside here for some
2:49
Speaker 1: you're well married.
2:50
Speaker 2: You're married for what forty one years? Forty one years
2:53
Speaker 2: to the same woman, the same woman.
3:00
Speaker 3: We met down here at the University of Chicago and
3:02
Speaker 3: my first graduate course in economics.
3:04
Speaker 2: She was a student.
3:05
Speaker 3: She was a student too, We were fellow students.
3:07
Speaker 1: Oh I see, Uh so you never did presume to
3:10
Speaker 1: teach her though.
3:10
Speaker 3: Oh no, no, no, this is when I was first.
3:12
Speaker 1: That's probably why you've been married for And you also
3:16
Speaker 1: enjoy the prestige of the Nobel Prize. You are the
3:20
Speaker 1: counselor to presidents and the presidential candidates. It's really a
3:25
Speaker 1: wonderful spot to be. And this is you know, this
3:27
Speaker 1: is the last thing your mother would expect my son
3:30
Speaker 1: economists to have become a celebrity.
3:32
Speaker 3: You are absolutely right. Unfortunately she died many years ago.
3:36
Speaker 3: But you know, I want to put one salt note
3:39
Speaker 3: in that people often fail to distinguish between giving advice
3:43
Speaker 3: and having it taken. Mm hm. And you're so given
3:49
Speaker 3: advice to many presidential aspirants. It hasn't always been taken.
3:53
Speaker 3: In fact, most of the time it hasn't been.
3:55
Speaker 2: I think we can assume that it's certainly not being taken.
3:57
Speaker 3: Now, well, I haven't given any advice to President Carter,
4:01
Speaker 3: but none has been solicited.
4:02
Speaker 4: None has been solicited. But that really doesn't matter.
4:05
Speaker 3: Because I published my views in thew in Newsweek and
4:08
Speaker 3: other areas. Anybody who wants to know my opinions or
4:12
Speaker 3: my views has him readily available. Nobody has to call
4:15
Speaker 3: me on the telephone to find out.
4:17
Speaker 2: Yeah.
4:18
Speaker 3: The only time I talked to President Carter was in
4:20
Speaker 3: the interim between his inauguration, his election and his inauguration,
4:25
Speaker 3: when there was an absolutely hilarious incident. He tried to
4:29
Speaker 3: call me to congratulate me on the Nobel Award, and
4:33
Speaker 3: he told his secretary to get Milton Friedman. Well, it
4:36
Speaker 3: so happened there was a speech writer in Jerry Ford's
4:39
Speaker 3: White House called Milton Friedman. This is in the interim
4:43
Speaker 3: after Jerry Ford has been turned out, and all of
4:47
Speaker 3: a sudden, the telephone rings and Milton Friedman in the
4:49
Speaker 3: White House here's president elected. Carter is on the phone,
4:53
Speaker 3: and he thinks Santa Claus is coming.
4:55
Speaker 1: This will be the unprecedented act of being asked to
4:58
Speaker 1: come on another administration.
4:59
Speaker 3: Well, it turned out he was really trying to get me,
5:01
Speaker 3: and he finally got me up in Vermont, where we
5:03
Speaker 3: were at the time.
5:07
Speaker 1: Let me see if I can express in very imprecise
5:10
Speaker 1: terms and very briefly, what has the core of your
5:17
Speaker 1: statement here a personal statement. We have too much government.
5:20
Speaker 1: We are not allowing the free enterprise system to work.
5:23
Speaker 2: As your.
5:27
Speaker 1: Most favored historical figure Adam Smith suggested, it would work
5:31
Speaker 1: if we just let things alone.
5:33
Speaker 2: We have too much government intervention.
5:35
Speaker 1: It is interrupting the not only the wonderful work that
5:40
Speaker 1: the invisible hand does if we leave it alone, but
5:43
Speaker 1: it's also depriving people of personal liberties.
5:45
Speaker 2: Absolutely fill in the blanks form No.
5:49
Speaker 3: No, that's a very good summer. There is a very
5:51
Speaker 3: important role for government to play. But there's such a
5:55
Speaker 3: thing as too much of a good thing, and government
5:57
Speaker 3: has been growing beyond bounds right now. To take the
6:01
Speaker 3: simplest measure, the government spending at federal, state, and local
6:06
Speaker 3: levels amounts to over forty percent of the income of.
6:09
Speaker 4: The people of the country.
6:11
Speaker 3: If you go around and ask people, are you getting
6:13
Speaker 3: your money's worth for that forty percent of your income
6:16
Speaker 3: which is being spent on your behalf, supposedly by government,
6:20
Speaker 3: there are very few people who will say.
6:22
Speaker 4: Yes, and they are right. We're not getting our money's
6:24
Speaker 4: worth much of it is. It's not many that it's
6:26
Speaker 4: being wasted.
6:28
Speaker 3: It's that it's being wasted in a very particular sense.
6:31
Speaker 3: You're spending money to do opposite things. Here at one place,
6:36
Speaker 3: you're spending we're spending our money to try to propagandize
6:40
Speaker 3: us not to smoke. In another place, we're spending our
6:44
Speaker 3: money to subsidize a growing a tobacco. Now what sense
6:47
Speaker 3: does it make to spend two streams of money like that?
6:50
Speaker 3: And you can go over and over again and find
6:53
Speaker 3: exactly the same thing. The government is too big, it's
6:56
Speaker 3: too intrusive, it restricts what we can do. It's becoming
7:00
Speaker 3: our master instead of our servant, and we've got to
7:03
Speaker 3: react against it and cut it down.
7:05
Speaker 2: Besides, all right, let's share with the people at home.
7:08
Speaker 1: Just one of the statements of Adam Smith that you
7:12
Speaker 1: refer to in your book, which of course when I wanted,
7:14
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be able to. Oh it's on
7:15
Speaker 1: page too, all right, thank you. All right, I've exerpted
7:18
Speaker 1: from your book as you have from Adam Smith, so
7:20
Speaker 1: we can we both with apologies to Adam Smith too,
7:24
Speaker 1: from whom permission was not granted for this.
7:26
Speaker 2: But here is what feels pretty good.
7:29
Speaker 3: But he doesn't communicate with the next world.
7:31
Speaker 1: All right, by pursuing his own interest, that is to say,
7:36
Speaker 1: his meaning the person engaged in free enterprise, the person
7:39
Speaker 1: who functions within the capitalist free enterprise system.
7:43
Speaker 2: Adam Smith says.
7:44
Speaker 1: He frequently promotes that of the society more effectively than
7:49
Speaker 1: when he really intends to promote it. I have Smith says,
7:54
Speaker 1: I have never known much good done by those who
7:58
Speaker 1: affected to trade for the public good, meaning, spare me
8:02
Speaker 1: from the do gooders, spare me from the people who
8:05
Speaker 1: intend to do good. Smith is saying, if you seek,
8:08
Speaker 1: if you honestly seek your own self interest within the
8:11
Speaker 1: free enterprise system, society.
8:13
Speaker 2: Will be the beneficiary. That's a hard thing to do.
8:16
Speaker 3: But take the last part of that, I've never known that.
8:19
Speaker 3: I've never known much good done. No, you know, I
8:22
Speaker 3: don't have to see that I've never known much good
8:24
Speaker 3: done by those who affected to trade for affected. Note
8:27
Speaker 3: he doesn't say did trade affected to trade for the
8:30
Speaker 3: public good. Now, that word affected is a very important point,
8:35
Speaker 3: because you must realizize that people don't always express their
8:41
Speaker 3: real interests or.
8:42
Speaker 4: Their real values. They say what they think will be
8:46
Speaker 4: attractive to the public at large. Let me give you
8:48
Speaker 4: a very simple example.
8:49
Speaker 3: Right now, General Motors, one of our major cooperations, has
8:53
Speaker 3: come out against the deregulation.
8:55
Speaker 4: Of the trucking industry.
8:57
Speaker 3: The trucking industry today is grossly over regulated. It never
9:00
Speaker 3: should have been regulated at all. We never should have
9:02
Speaker 3: had it brought it under the Interstate Commerce Commission. It
9:05
Speaker 3: was brought under the Interstate Commerce Commission not to protect
9:08
Speaker 3: the consumer, but to protect the railroads at the time
9:12
Speaker 3: from the competition of trucks when they were first introduced
9:14
Speaker 3: into the twenties. Right now, there's a move underway to
9:17
Speaker 3: deregulate trucking the way airlines have been deregulated. There is
9:21
Speaker 3: nobody doubts that the deregulation of airlines was a very
9:24
Speaker 3: good thing for everybody. The deregulation of trucking would be
9:27
Speaker 3: an equally good thing.
9:28
Speaker 4: There are literally billions of.
9:30
Speaker 3: Dollars being wasted because of the monopoly and trucking.
9:34
Speaker 1: You're talking about fees when you talk about deregulation, I
9:37
Speaker 1: assume you would still have some monitor on weight. And
9:41
Speaker 1: can the trucking industry benefit by using highways that I
9:44
Speaker 1: am paying for and may not using the merchandise I don't.
9:47
Speaker 3: Now you now have a gasoline tax which covers the
9:49
Speaker 3: cost through the highways. It is appropriate to charge for
9:52
Speaker 3: the use of the highways. Of course, they ought not
9:54
Speaker 3: to get a subsidy. I am opposed to subsidies, and
9:57
Speaker 3: I'm opposed to the opposite of the excess taxies. But
10:00
Speaker 3: they do now pay for the use of the highway
10:02
Speaker 3: through the through the gasoline tax, and they should continue
10:05
Speaker 3: to do so. As to weight limits, that really has
10:08
Speaker 3: nothing to do with the ICC. That has to do
10:10
Speaker 3: with the capacity of different roads.
10:13
Speaker 1: I want to understand you, though, that you're not such
10:15
Speaker 1: a purist as to be impractical. You think you don't
10:17
Speaker 1: think anybody's trucks should drive over anybody's pavement if the
10:20
Speaker 1: construction isn't prepared to accept the wall.
10:21
Speaker 4: No, of course, not okay, perfectly, that's but that applies
10:25
Speaker 4: not only the trunks.
10:25
Speaker 3: It applies to private cars, it applies to a private
10:29
Speaker 3: recreational vehicle.
10:30
Speaker 4: But what you ought to do is.
10:31
Speaker 3: To allow anybody who wants to go into the business
10:34
Speaker 3: a trucking to do so. You know, there are people
10:36
Speaker 3: today who receive one hundred thousand dollars a year to
10:41
Speaker 3: give somebody else permission to use their ICC right to
10:44
Speaker 3: carry trucks to carry freight from one point to another.
10:48
Speaker 3: People who make a very good living without owning a
10:50
Speaker 3: single truck. The total value of these special permits which
10:56
Speaker 3: have been given to trucking enterprises to carry freight mounts
11:00
Speaker 3: literally to billions.
11:01
Speaker 2: Of dollars now.
11:03
Speaker 3: General Motors and the trucking industry when they come down
11:06
Speaker 3: to Washington and say we ought to continue regulation, do
11:09
Speaker 3: they say we ought to continue regulation in order to
11:12
Speaker 3: promote our interests?
11:13
Speaker 4: M M? What do they say? They say, the public
11:16
Speaker 4: will be hurt. They are affecting to trade for the
11:19
Speaker 4: public good. But do you think they're kidding themselves.
11:22
Speaker 1: They're saying, we don't want the wonderful individual people in
11:27
Speaker 1: Middle America to be hurt, and you're saying that's not what.
11:31
Speaker 4: They're They know they're not stupid.
11:34
Speaker 2: They're not Santa Claus.
11:36
Speaker 4: They're not Santa Claus.
11:37
Speaker 3: There are people who are promoting their own interest and
11:40
Speaker 3: they're affecting to trade for the public good because that's
11:43
Speaker 3: the way to get things done. Nobody ever goes up
11:46
Speaker 3: to Congress and says, look, vote me a big bonanza
11:49
Speaker 3: one hundred thousand dollars because I'm a good man and
11:51
Speaker 3: I deserve.
11:51
Speaker 4: One hundred thousand dollars out of the public purse.
11:53
Speaker 3: No, he says, you should subsidize X, Y, and Z
11:56
Speaker 3: because the poor middle class Americans or the poor people
11:59
Speaker 3: in the slum's word, will be benefited from it by it.
12:03
Speaker 3: So you have two classes of people, the so called
12:06
Speaker 3: do gooders, you have the honest, sincere people, and they
12:10
Speaker 3: invariably end up being the frontmen for private interests they
12:15
Speaker 3: would never knowingly support.
12:17
Speaker 4: That's part of that them.
12:18
Speaker 2: What's an example of that.
12:19
Speaker 3: An example of that are the nineteenth century ralph Nators
12:22
Speaker 3: who got the Interstate Commerce Commission established. They got the
12:26
Speaker 3: Interstate Commerce Commission established supposedly to protect or the consumer.
12:32
Speaker 1: No.
12:32
Speaker 3: No, the do gooder reformers, the ralph Nator types, were sincere.
12:36
Speaker 3: They were interested in promoting the interests of the consumers.
12:39
Speaker 3: And they were complaining that the railroads were monopolies and
12:43
Speaker 3: they were charging too high freight rates, and we had
12:46
Speaker 3: to get the government in in order to eliminate that
12:50
Speaker 3: exploitation of the consumer.
12:52
Speaker 4: But who benefited from it? The ICC was set up.
12:56
Speaker 3: The do good or well meaning reformers went on to
12:58
Speaker 3: their next reform and the railroads over the ICC, and
13:02
Speaker 3: they used the ICC to keep out competition to raise
13:05
Speaker 3: rates rather than lower them. They used it in the
13:08
Speaker 3: nineteen twenties to get the control of ICC extended to
13:12
Speaker 3: trucking because that was the most dangerous source of competition.
13:16
Speaker 3: So those well meaning reformers, not because they were bad people,
13:20
Speaker 3: but they ended up being the front man for special Anderson.
13:23
Speaker 4: And you'll have that over and over again.
13:25
Speaker 2: All right, all right, I know you've heard these.
13:29
Speaker 4: Incidentally, I should point out Adam Smith.
13:32
Speaker 3: Adam Smith, Okay, all right, Look, the only frustrating part
13:38
Speaker 3: of a dialogue.
13:39
Speaker 1: With you is it is I want the audience has
13:41
Speaker 1: a lot of questions for you too, and it's so
13:43
Speaker 1: hard to do this within the confines of this limited
13:45
Speaker 1: time frame.
13:46
Speaker 2: However, how do you how do you?
13:49
Speaker 1: And I know you've answered these questions, so you can
13:52
Speaker 1: hear your teeth crack, But how do you prevent monopoly?
13:56
Speaker 1: You've got to have constraints on monopoly. And isn't United
14:00
Speaker 1: Airlines too big? And look what happened when they went
14:03
Speaker 1: on strike? And should panab absorbed National Airlines? We're going
14:06
Speaker 1: to have three airlines when it's all over, and we're
14:09
Speaker 1: all going to be beholden to them. Everybody's going to
14:11
Speaker 1: be in personal You can see it.
14:13
Speaker 2: Now on the airlines.
14:14
Speaker 1: Nobody looks you in the eye and they're giving paper
14:16
Speaker 1: cups in first class.
14:24
Speaker 5: How's that for elders effect?
14:26
Speaker 3: But well, personally, I don't see any objection of paper cups.
14:30
Speaker 4: But let's go back.
14:31
Speaker 3: The problem with the kit of statement you're making is
14:34
Speaker 3: to distinguish what's true from what's not true. The plane
14:38
Speaker 3: fact is that the main restriction on the number of
14:41
Speaker 3: airlines has been the Civil Aeronautics Board. From the time
14:44
Speaker 3: the Civil Aeronautics Board took over control of the airlines
14:47
Speaker 3: in the nineteen thirties until now, until the deregulation, they
14:52
Speaker 3: did not authorize a single new trunk line becomeber of
14:57
Speaker 3: trunk lines was less.
14:58
Speaker 1: Because they were owned by the airlines who didn't want
15:01
Speaker 1: more competition. Of course, now, so the government became then
15:04
Speaker 1: an agency to help the existing airlines, not.
15:07
Speaker 3: To have exactly exactly now what happened with deregulation.
15:11
Speaker 2: You filled every seat in the airplane, and you had
15:13
Speaker 2: new airlines come in.
15:14
Speaker 4: The number of airlines has gone up, knocked down.
15:16
Speaker 3: It is true that there are some proposals to merge
15:19
Speaker 3: United National, but they're also pennam National. I'm sorry, but
15:23
Speaker 3: there are also a bunch of new.
15:24
Speaker 4: Airlines that are coming out.
15:25
Speaker 3: Here's World Airways, wom you've never heard of before, that's offering.
15:28
Speaker 4: These cheap fare.
15:29
Speaker 2: Freddie Laker.
15:30
Speaker 3: Freddie Laker broke the Transatlantic monopoly. So the fact is
15:35
Speaker 3: that the best protection of the consumer the best offense
15:39
Speaker 3: against monopoly.
15:42
Speaker 4: Let me put in another way. There's an old saying.
15:45
Speaker 3: If you want to catch a thief, you set a
15:46
Speaker 3: thief to catch him. If you want to catch a
15:50
Speaker 3: businessman monopoly, you set another businessman to break it down.
15:53
Speaker 3: You don't send a government civil servant after him. The
15:57
Speaker 3: most effective anti monopoly legislation you could possibly have would
16:01
Speaker 3: be free trade.
16:02
Speaker 1: Okay, now answer this practical question, Professor Freedman and there
16:07
Speaker 1: are some angry people who would say, come down from
16:09
Speaker 1: your academic tower and tell us how we're going to
16:12
Speaker 1: get automobile dealers who really care about servicing the car
16:16
Speaker 1: as much as they care about selling us the car.
16:20
Speaker 1: Tell us how we're going to get automobile dealers who
16:28
Speaker 1: sell us safety with the same vigor that they sell
16:31
Speaker 1: us cosmetics.
16:33
Speaker 3: Well, if the public at large really wanted to buy
16:35
Speaker 3: safety rather than cosmetics, it would be in the self
16:38
Speaker 3: enters of the automobile dealers to sell them safety. You
16:41
Speaker 3: have had some automobile companies that have concentrated on selling safety,
16:45
Speaker 3: and they have not done very well in the sales.
16:47
Speaker 3: You can't blame here you have. Let me give you
16:50
Speaker 3: a very simple example. You have the so called Superba car,
16:53
Speaker 3: which is built by the Checker company that produces Checker cabs.
16:58
Speaker 3: Cabs emphasize safety. It's the safest car probably there is
17:02
Speaker 3: built in America.
17:03
Speaker 4: They haven't been able to sell very many if.
17:06
Speaker 3: The problem with your your talk is that you're not
17:09
Speaker 3: talking in terms of what the consumer really wants, as
17:12
Speaker 3: judged by what he's willing to pay for.
17:14
Speaker 4: You're talking in terms of what you think he ought
17:16
Speaker 4: to want.
17:18
Speaker 2: I am also taught.
17:19
Speaker 6: Okay, So the underpinning here, underneath your statement here is
17:24
Speaker 6: the stupid public wants no cellars and no put blue
17:29
Speaker 6: lights on these cars in the showrooms, and every says, yeah,
17:32
Speaker 6: I want one of those.
17:32
Speaker 2: I'm not Padlovs done.
17:33
Speaker 4: I'm not going to call them stupid. The public is
17:36
Speaker 4: entitled to buy what it wants to buy. Who am
17:38
Speaker 4: I to say whether those tastes are better or where?
17:40
Speaker 1: I mean take, what's your conclusion on a person who's
17:43
Speaker 1: more interested in the style of a car than whether
17:45
Speaker 1: or not the baby's protected.
17:47
Speaker 2: After the collusion, Well, that's stupid.
17:49
Speaker 3: I think he has every right to pursue his own objectives,
17:52
Speaker 3: in his own tastes, and I have every right to
17:54
Speaker 3: try to persuade him.
17:55
Speaker 4: He's wrong, Okay, But if I can't persuade.
17:58
Speaker 3: Him, do I have the right to force? Now, you
18:00
Speaker 3: don't bring in the baby, because that raises another and
18:03
Speaker 3: an extraneous and very difficult issue. Because I am I
18:06
Speaker 3: will agree with you, he does not have the right.
18:11
Speaker 3: That's a different question. A third party effect is different.
18:14
Speaker 1: I trust you wouldn't pass a law to obliged babies
18:16
Speaker 1: to be constrained in cars.
18:17
Speaker 4: No, I probably would not, but I think that I'm
18:20
Speaker 4: comfortable in saying no, no, no, no, I'm comfortable.
18:22
Speaker 3: But what I would do is I would say that
18:25
Speaker 3: any parent who any parent ought to be subject to
18:30
Speaker 3: suit and to being sent to jail if a child
18:35
Speaker 3: has been damaged because of that, parents, you're willing.
18:38
Speaker 1: To pay for the prosecutor that it's going to take
18:40
Speaker 1: to develop the evidence that the mother didn't place the
18:42
Speaker 1: baby properly in the car, and the bureaucracy that will
18:45
Speaker 1: accompany the enforcement of the law, which says that you.
18:48
Speaker 3: Can, unfortunately pay for it. I'm not, as I said,
18:54
Speaker 3: I'm not an anarchist. I believe that government has a
18:57
Speaker 3: very important role, but it's a limited role. And because
19:01
Speaker 3: we've been trying to extend the role, we haven't been
19:03
Speaker 3: doing what government ought to do as well as it
19:05
Speaker 3: does as it should. We've been doing a terrible job
19:09
Speaker 3: on what ought to be the first function of government.
19:12
Speaker 3: The first function of government is to protect the nation
19:14
Speaker 3: against foreign enemies and to protect individual citizens against assault
19:19
Speaker 3: by their fellow citizens, and we've been doing a terrible
19:21
Speaker 3: job on both ends.
19:23
Speaker 1: And in that in that goal you are, you are
19:27
Speaker 1: aligned with John Stuart mill absolutely not bad company. And
19:30
Speaker 1: I want to show you what I've taken out of
19:32
Speaker 1: your book.
19:32
Speaker 3: You've quoted Millie, and I'm glad to see you've read
19:35
Speaker 3: the page two two.
19:39
Speaker 2: All right, that's this is a long hour, I'll tell you.
19:44
Speaker 1: Okay, here it is johnstra The sole end for which
19:47
Speaker 1: mankind are warranted This looks grammatically in correct. Stay with us,
19:51
Speaker 1: individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action
19:55
Speaker 1: of any of their number is self protection. The only
20:00
Speaker 1: purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
20:03
Speaker 1: member of a civilized community against.
20:05
Speaker 2: His will is to prevent harm to others.
20:10
Speaker 4: Uh.
20:10
Speaker 1: And then, okay, the only part of the conduct of anyone,
20:14
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, his own good, either physical or moral, is
20:17
Speaker 1: not a sufficient warrant.
20:19
Speaker 2: In other words, let's understand that for my own good,
20:25
Speaker 2: for my own good, the.
20:26
Speaker 1: Government cannot pass what would what would be called forcible action.
20:32
Speaker 1: In other words, in other words, here's here's the way
20:35
Speaker 1: I can use a person not to be able to
20:37
Speaker 1: kill themselves.
20:38
Speaker 4: In that the right to commit suicide is a natural
20:40
Speaker 4: human run.
20:41
Speaker 2: It's your it's your life, it's your life. Now, I
20:44
Speaker 2: don't want the government to spend any money to prevent
20:46
Speaker 2: you from doing that.
20:47
Speaker 4: Absolutely no.
20:49
Speaker 3: Now I am in fact, obviously I, as a friend
20:51
Speaker 3: of yours, will try to prevent you. If you were
20:54
Speaker 3: a friend of mine and you suddenly got to a
20:56
Speaker 3: bridge and we're going to jump over, I would certainly
20:58
Speaker 3: rush over and grab you.
20:59
Speaker 2: And but you don't want public money from doing.
21:02
Speaker 4: Well, I would go father, no, no, I want to
21:04
Speaker 4: go farther.
21:04
Speaker 3: On a personal basis, I would reason with you, I
21:06
Speaker 3: would argue with you. But let's suppose after I had
21:09
Speaker 3: reasoned with you, after I had argued with you, I.
21:12
Speaker 4: Had failed to persuade you. Do I have the right
21:15
Speaker 4: to use force.
21:16
Speaker 3: To prevent you from disposing of your own life? The
21:20
Speaker 3: clearest case of that than I certainly do not. I
21:23
Speaker 3: certainly do not, and you do not, and certainly you
21:29
Speaker 3: do not have the right to put your hands in
21:32
Speaker 3: the pockets of other people in order to prevent somebody
21:36
Speaker 3: from doing something in his own value system.
21:41
Speaker 4: Now you know, it's an interesting thing.
21:42
Speaker 3: Every time you bring up issues like this, people don't
21:45
Speaker 3: recognize what's been happening. Where is the rate of suicide highest?
21:50
Speaker 3: Is it in the countries that are free enterprise countries?
21:52
Speaker 3: Or is it in socialist countries. Sweden has the highest
21:56
Speaker 3: rate of suicide of any of the Western countries.
21:58
Speaker 4: At last time I looked at the figures. Maybe they've
22:00
Speaker 4: changed why.
22:03
Speaker 3: I don't mean why, but it's an interesting thing, interesting
22:06
Speaker 3: observation that Sweden is one of the most government controlled
22:11
Speaker 3: government uh uh socialist countries in the world. But that
22:16
Speaker 3: hasn't prevented people from committing suicide. But the problem take
22:19
Speaker 3: the simpler cases.
22:20
Speaker 2: Don't think it's this way has to be made.
22:22
Speaker 1: The problem with your point is that that this is
22:25
Speaker 1: hardly anymore the best representative example of what the free
22:29
Speaker 1: enterprise system ought to be. So you, yourself are America's
22:32
Speaker 1: severest critic. You think we've blown Adam Smith's theory here
22:35
Speaker 1: in America. So we should have people jumping up bridges
22:37
Speaker 1: left and right here because it's a bad We do well,
22:41
Speaker 1: we do.
22:41
Speaker 4: Look at the point you just no, no, it doesn't
22:44
Speaker 4: because we have become so socialists. Look at the extent
22:46
Speaker 4: to which people.
22:47
Speaker 3: Are opting out of the world by going in for drugs,
22:52
Speaker 3: by going in for various other activities of this kind,
22:55
Speaker 3: which are a delayed form of committing suicide. One of
22:59
Speaker 3: the problems of our society is that by having all
23:02
Speaker 3: responsibility assigned to the government, we have removed the pressure
23:05
Speaker 3: on individuals to be responsible for themselves, to feel that.
23:08
Speaker 4: They have a set of values that they are entitled
23:11
Speaker 4: to pursue. So that no, no, I don't believe there
23:14
Speaker 4: are I.
23:14
Speaker 2: Assume then that if somebody wants to smoke marijuana.
23:16
Speaker 4: That's their business, that's his business.
23:18
Speaker 2: Alutely are we going to take that to heroin?
23:20
Speaker 3: And absolutely, now there let me go back on that one,
23:25
Speaker 3: because that's a very interesting thing.
23:27
Speaker 4: Even if on ethical principles you.
23:29
Speaker 3: Believe it is right to prevent somebody else from smoking
23:32
Speaker 3: heroin as a matter of expediency, it's a terrible mistake.
23:38
Speaker 2: The largest is jumping off the bridge.
23:40
Speaker 4: No, no, I don't mean that.
23:41
Speaker 3: I mean it's a terrible mistake for society to render
23:44
Speaker 3: heroin illegal because that increases the.
23:46
Speaker 4: Harm which heroin does.
23:49
Speaker 3: Why do we have so much crime in the inner
23:50
Speaker 3: cities and in the cities over fifty percent of it
23:53
Speaker 3: is attributed to crime for the sake of acquiring money
23:57
Speaker 3: to buy heroin? Because why is heroin because it's illegal.
24:02
Speaker 3: We went through this with prohibition. Whether you believe it's
24:05
Speaker 3: right or wrong to prevent people from drinking alcohol. We
24:11
Speaker 3: had the experience with prohibition in which we found that
24:16
Speaker 3: it did more harm.
24:17
Speaker 2: Than gun and a lot of guys got shot in
24:18
Speaker 2: the garage.
24:19
Speaker 3: A lot of guys got shot in the more important
24:23
Speaker 3: the basic respect for law was eroded. Law abiding people
24:27
Speaker 3: who would never ordinarily have broken the law broke the
24:29
Speaker 3: law in order to get.
24:30
Speaker 1: A drink because they knew that the law enforcement agencies
24:34
Speaker 1: could not possibly enforce with any efficiency the laws against
24:41
Speaker 1: the law of the prohibition.
24:42
Speaker 3: Look, the reason they couldn't enforce it was because it
24:45
Speaker 3: wasn't publicly backed. If the ninety percent of the public
24:48
Speaker 3: had been in favor of the prohibition law, you could
24:50
Speaker 3: have enforced it.
24:50
Speaker 1: But I'm promising you ninety percent of the public right
24:52
Speaker 1: now is in favor of enforcing prohibition against heroin, and.
24:55
Speaker 4: You cannot enforce it. I agree, I was understating my case.
25:00
Speaker 3: Even with ninety percent of the people, you can't enforce it,
25:02
Speaker 3: and it does vastly more harm today because it is
25:06
Speaker 3: illegal than it would do if it were legal. Let
25:09
Speaker 3: me point out for a moment, then more lives are
25:11
Speaker 3: lost each year through drinking alcohol than through heroin. But
25:14
Speaker 3: if there's a case, if you're going to make the
25:16
Speaker 3: case for preventing heroin on the basis of saving lives,
25:20
Speaker 3: there's a much stronger case for prohibition of alcohol.
25:24
Speaker 1: But that there would be some who would argue that
25:27
Speaker 1: to relax law enforcement or to take away law enforcement
25:31
Speaker 1: pressure on heroin trade is to ensure that heroin deaths
25:35
Speaker 1: will meet and exceed alcohol deaths.
25:37
Speaker 3: On the contrary, it would reduce the number of heroin deaths.
25:40
Speaker 3: Why would it reduce the number of heroin death In
25:42
Speaker 3: the first place, many of the death comes come from impure.
25:48
Speaker 4: Heroin or needles that are contaminated.
25:51
Speaker 3: In the second place, as we found in prohibition, the
25:54
Speaker 3: fact of prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite to
25:58
Speaker 3: the young people, and it became an adventure to go
26:01
Speaker 3: out and.
26:01
Speaker 4: Get drug, to go to a speakeasy.
26:03
Speaker 3: Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to
26:09
Speaker 3: create an addict because, given that it's illegal, if he
26:13
Speaker 3: it's worth his while to spend some money on getting
26:16
Speaker 3: somebody else hooked, because once hooked, he has a captive audience.
26:20
Speaker 3: If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn't pay anybody
26:24
Speaker 3: to create an addict, because the addict could then go
26:27
Speaker 3: anywhere to buy it.
26:29
Speaker 4: You have had experience with this.
26:31
Speaker 3: Britain has had legalized not heroin in general, but they
26:35
Speaker 3: have had an arrangement under which certified addicts can get
26:38
Speaker 3: heroin from physicians on prescription, and it's done very much
26:43
Speaker 3: less harm than our system has. So I have no
26:46
Speaker 3: apologies for believing that far less harm would be done
26:51
Speaker 3: to this country by legalizing heroin than is now being
26:54
Speaker 3: done by trying to enforce heroin prohibition.
26:57
Speaker 1: I assume, like the baby in the car, you would
27:01
Speaker 1: support legislation prohibiting the sale of heroin and other addictive
27:05
Speaker 1: substances to juveniles.
27:08
Speaker 3: Well, that's a very hard question. I think there is
27:10
Speaker 3: a different case for juveniles. But whether you could really
27:14
Speaker 3: handle the question, that's a question of expediency, not a principle.
27:17
Speaker 3: If I thought I could enforce it, I would be
27:20
Speaker 3: willing to say that for juveniles. But I'm not sure
27:23
Speaker 3: I could enforce it, and I'm not sure when I
27:25
Speaker 3: looked into it, I wouldn't decide I did more harm
27:27
Speaker 3: than good.
27:27
Speaker 1: Even there, you'll agree that this is the issue that
27:32
Speaker 1: lays bare's the whole notion.
27:35
Speaker 2: Of your personal statement.
27:36
Speaker 1: And this is where we get to the practical realities
27:39
Speaker 1: of sweat and blood, everyday life with parental anxiety. Where
27:42
Speaker 1: are my kids, what are those sirens? Who's selling what
27:45
Speaker 1: to whom? What are they doing in the car, who's sniffing, smoking, drinking?
27:48
Speaker 1: What is happening out there? And for all of the
27:51
Speaker 1: adulation that you've received, standing ovations everywhere you go, this
27:57
Speaker 1: is a very difficult platform for you.
28:00
Speaker 4: To I don't believe so.
28:02
Speaker 3: I don't believe so because I believe it corresponds to
28:05
Speaker 3: the real understanding and interests and beliefs of the vast
28:09
Speaker 3: majority of the American people.
28:10
Speaker 4: I think that you have to distinguish between.
28:13
Speaker 3: The attitudes of the public at large and the attitudes
28:16
Speaker 3: of a relatively small group of people who have been
28:19
Speaker 3: trying to persuade the public to have different views.
28:21
Speaker 2: I know that, doctor Friedman, And look at prohibition. Yeah, okay,
28:27
Speaker 2: And why.
28:27
Speaker 4: Did you get it adopted in the first place.
28:29
Speaker 3: If the people in this audience, who are predominantly female,
28:31
Speaker 3: will pardon me, it was only adopted because the young
28:35
Speaker 3: males were away in France during World War One, and.
28:40
Speaker 4: The women of the country voted in prohibition. Now that's
28:49
Speaker 4: neither good nor bad.
28:50
Speaker 3: It's a pure statement of historical fact.
28:52
Speaker 1: The irony, though, let's not miss the irony here. The
28:56
Speaker 1: irony is that you are the darling of the conservative
29:01
Speaker 1: almost is there anybody left who doesn't think we have
29:03
Speaker 1: too much government? And you are as eloquent as spokesman
29:06
Speaker 1: against that abuse as there is walking around today. You
29:10
Speaker 1: are also on record as supporting the candidacy of Ronald Reagan.
29:14
Speaker 1: Do I have to tell you what happens to Ronald
29:16
Speaker 1: Reagan's candidacy if he's so much.
29:18
Speaker 2: As breeds agreement to the statement you've just made about drug.
29:22
Speaker 3: Well, Fortunately, one of the great virtues of being a
29:26
Speaker 3: college professor is that you can say exactly what you
29:29
Speaker 3: believe and what you mean.
29:31
Speaker 4: I'm not running for office. I've never run for office.
29:34
Speaker 3: I have no desire to run for office, and so
29:37
Speaker 3: I regard it as a great luxury that I can
29:40
Speaker 3: be irresponsible.
29:45
Speaker 2: We'll be back this night.
29:56
Speaker 4: I just don't believe that you can take away laws.
29:58
Speaker 3: I have children.
29:58
Speaker 7: If I don't tell them what to do and how
30:00
Speaker 7: to raise them, they won't know what we expected in I.
30:04
Speaker 5: Feel there's nothing against you telling your kids with No.
30:06
Speaker 7: But I met you compare the government to that telling
30:08
Speaker 7: us what to do and deregulation everything.
30:10
Speaker 2: I think we have to have something to go by.
30:12
Speaker 3: Well, but you see, what you're expressing is precisely the
30:14
Speaker 3: paternalistic view of government that I object to. I don't
30:18
Speaker 3: believe government is the mother of children. I don't believe
30:21
Speaker 3: government is a father of children. I believe government is
30:24
Speaker 3: a way in which you and I and our fellow
30:26
Speaker 3: citizens achieve certain things jointly that we can't achieve separately.
30:30
Speaker 3: And I believe it is your responsibility as a mother
30:33
Speaker 3: to bring up your children in accordance with the values
30:36
Speaker 3: you believe. And I believe it's a cop out for
30:39
Speaker 3: you to say I want the government to do that
30:41
Speaker 3: for me.
30:42
Speaker 7: No, but there's some you were talking about suicides and
30:49
Speaker 7: how if you had a friend who is going to
30:50
Speaker 7: commit suicide. People who commit suicide are very lonely people.
30:53
Speaker 7: They usually don't have people to turn to. So if
30:55
Speaker 7: you can help them with counseling, which the government would fund,
30:58
Speaker 7: that would save a life.
30:59
Speaker 3: Which is there are different ways to achieve that. Most
31:03
Speaker 3: counseling groups for suicides, in fact, are not financed by government.
31:07
Speaker 4: Money. First of all, the government doesn't have any money.
31:11
Speaker 4: Only people have money.
31:13
Speaker 3: The government only gets money by putting its hand in
31:16
Speaker 3: your pocket and taking it out.
31:21
Speaker 4: If you believe, if you.
31:23
Speaker 3: Believe in the desirability of a counseling agency to counsel suicides,
31:28
Speaker 3: more power to you. Get together with friends, organize it,
31:31
Speaker 3: finance it on your own. And if the government didn't
31:34
Speaker 3: take as much money out of your pockets as it does,
31:37
Speaker 3: you'd be better able to do it.
31:39
Speaker 2: And also that a fewer lonely people and less suicide.
31:42
Speaker 4: That's right doing. All right, we're getting in there.
31:45
Speaker 2: Phil Okay, all.
31:47
Speaker 5: Right, yes, ma'am, you want to stand please, we're in
31:51
Speaker 5: Chicago with.
31:52
Speaker 2: Professor Milton Free.
31:54
Speaker 8: If since you do like Ronald Reagan, and let's say
31:58
Speaker 8: he wins the election and he chooses you as his
32:00
Speaker 8: chief economic advisor, what would you do to restart our
32:05
Speaker 8: economy back on the right track? And would you put
32:08
Speaker 8: us on a gold standard or could you put us
32:10
Speaker 8: on a gold standard?
32:11
Speaker 3: Well, you've asked three questions, and I'll try to answer
32:14
Speaker 3: all three of Number one. I have been offered the
32:17
Speaker 3: chairmanship of the Council of Economic Advisors in the past,
32:20
Speaker 3: and I have refused it, and I guarantee you I
32:22
Speaker 3: would refuse it.
32:22
Speaker 2: Again because you feel that it's what you have something essential.
32:26
Speaker 3: I believe that I personally can be more useful outside
32:29
Speaker 3: the government than I can inside. It's a very important job.
32:32
Speaker 3: There are many able people who can do the job.
32:35
Speaker 3: I don't believe that's the way I can use my
32:38
Speaker 3: abilities and my interests most effectively.
32:40
Speaker 4: I want to remain irresponsible. You see what I mean
32:45
Speaker 4: by that.
32:45
Speaker 3: If you're in that kind of a position, it's right
32:48
Speaker 3: and proper that you're part of a team, and if
32:51
Speaker 3: the team decides on something.
32:52
Speaker 4: You don't agree with, you either go along with it
32:55
Speaker 4: or you quit. Well.
32:56
Speaker 3: I would rather stay on the outside where I can
32:58
Speaker 3: express my own views, and I believe I am more
33:01
Speaker 3: effective in that way then I personally would be inside
33:04
Speaker 3: the government. So I have no doubts about that. But
33:07
Speaker 3: number two, let me answer your second two questions. What
33:10
Speaker 3: measures should the government take to try to restore economic
33:16
Speaker 3: health to the United States? And I have very little
33:18
Speaker 3: doubt about what the major measure is there. But let
33:20
Speaker 3: me say first, you're not going to do it overnight.
33:23
Speaker 3: We've gotten into our present pickle because of three decades
33:26
Speaker 3: of mismanagement of the economy, and we're not going to
33:29
Speaker 3: get out of it in six months. But what you
33:32
Speaker 3: have to do is Number one, you have to move
33:35
Speaker 3: to cut down government spending, to hold down the rate
33:39
Speaker 3: of growth of government spending in dollars, and to cut
33:42
Speaker 3: it in terms of purchasing power. Number Two, you have
33:45
Speaker 3: to have a restrained monetary policy, not a shock treatment,
33:50
Speaker 3: not an over not a real cut in the quality
33:52
Speaker 3: of your money, but to hold down and have a
33:55
Speaker 3: gradual reduction in the rate of monetary growth. Number Three,
33:59
Speaker 3: you'll have to eliminate as many of the regulations that
34:04
Speaker 3: now be deviled the economy as you possibly can. The
34:07
Speaker 3: most important area there is the energy area. We have
34:11
Speaker 3: created the energy mess because of governmental intervention. The most
34:15
Speaker 3: effective measure we could take for both foreign policy and
34:18
Speaker 3: domestic policy would be to get rid of the Department
34:21
Speaker 3: of Energy, to get rid of this mislabeled windfall profits tax,
34:26
Speaker 3: to let the private enterprise economy go to work to
34:30
Speaker 3: produce the energy that we need. Now, on your last question,
34:34
Speaker 3: I do not believe it is either feasible or desirable
34:37
Speaker 3: to establish a gold standard under current circumstances. The gold
34:40
Speaker 3: standard served well in the nineteenth century. If you could
34:44
Speaker 3: restore the conditions of the nineteenth century, namely a situation
34:47
Speaker 3: in which federal government spending with three percent of national income,
34:50
Speaker 3: I'd be in favor of a gold standard.
34:52
Speaker 1: And some of your detractors would want you to know
34:55
Speaker 1: that the writings of your hero Adam Smith took place
34:58
Speaker 1: as well in the nineteenth century.
35:00
Speaker 4: No, it didn't in the eighteenth.
35:01
Speaker 1: Century, all right, than my point than my point is,
35:04
Speaker 1: my point is even more valid if the gold standard
35:07
Speaker 1: is no longer applicable given the modern nature of economics,
35:11
Speaker 1: how can we expect Adam Smith's writings to be well
35:14
Speaker 1: the principles, which are even older as you caught them.
35:16
Speaker 3: Well, you know, the Bible is two thousand years old,
35:19
Speaker 3: and I don't think you would say that the principles
35:21
Speaker 3: of the Bible are not applicable, but the way you
35:23
Speaker 3: apply them are different. The circumstances are different. The principles
35:27
Speaker 3: of Adam Smith are just as applicable today, but they
35:29
Speaker 3: have to be applied differently because the circumstances are different.
35:33
Speaker 3: And those principles made sense of the gold standard in
35:36
Speaker 3: the nineteenth century and don't in the twentieth.
35:38
Speaker 1: We'll talk later about the fairness of referring to the
35:41
Speaker 1: Bible when arguing with the prisoner.
35:51
Speaker 2: You want to get rid of the FCC too, huh?
35:53
Speaker 1: Sure, of course, get rid of the Federal Communications Commissioner
35:56
Speaker 1: if you can buy, if you would regulate, I mean,
35:59
Speaker 1: we got to have some control over the airway.
36:01
Speaker 3: No, Now, what I would do would be to have
36:03
Speaker 3: the Federal Communications Commission have a big auction at which
36:06
Speaker 3: they would auction off all the present television and radio line.
36:10
Speaker 1: And then only fat cats would own radio and television
36:12
Speaker 1: station on which many detractors say is the situation now?
36:15
Speaker 3: Well, first place, there are many of them, and many
36:18
Speaker 3: people could come in and compete with them. Do only
36:20
Speaker 3: fat cats you taught we were talking about airlines? Only
36:24
Speaker 3: fat cats?
36:25
Speaker 4: Only airlines.
36:25
Speaker 3: No, anybody here can buy a share of stock in
36:28
Speaker 3: the United Airlines or in TWA in the same way.
36:31
Speaker 4: With so they'd.
36:32
Speaker 1: Publicly held, and stockholders could dessent if they didn't like
36:35
Speaker 1: the commercials, if the commercials were.
36:36
Speaker 4: Too long, they could sell.
36:37
Speaker 3: If they thought that the that the company the station
36:41
Speaker 3: wasn't doing a good job, they could sell their stock.
36:43
Speaker 3: Much more effective than voting in Washington, because each individual
36:46
Speaker 3: separately can decide what to do. But more important, if
36:49
Speaker 3: you once put it made it into private property, it
36:53
Speaker 3: would be not subject to the fairness doctrine. You would
36:56
Speaker 3: have the same kind of free press on radio and
36:58
Speaker 3: television that you now have in the newspapers.
37:01
Speaker 2: Are you're gonna trust me to put all of the
37:04
Speaker 2: candidates on my program? Or am I just gonna put
37:07
Speaker 2: my favorite?
37:08
Speaker 4: You put your favorite on and some other station will
37:10
Speaker 4: put its favorite on. You do not get.
37:12
Speaker 3: Fairness by every individual program being fair. You do not
37:16
Speaker 3: get fairness by every individual station get fairness. In any event,
37:19
Speaker 3: I'm not in favor of fairness. I'm in favor of freedom,
37:23
Speaker 3: and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to
37:26
Speaker 3: decide what's fair, and that means the FCC people have
37:29
Speaker 3: to decide what's fair. I don't want the FCC people
37:32
Speaker 3: to decide for me what I should listen to or hear.
37:36
Speaker 3: And you wouldn't be able if the public at large
37:39
Speaker 3: didn't agree with your.
37:40
Speaker 4: Choices, you'd be out of business. So you you you know,
37:44
Speaker 4: it's a funny thing.
37:45
Speaker 3: People think that it's the appearance of power versus the.
37:49
Speaker 4: Reality of power. It looks like as if you have
37:52
Speaker 4: a lot of power over what you put on your shows.
37:55
Speaker 4: But you don't really because.
37:58
Speaker 3: Because if you didn't appeal of the public, if these
38:01
Speaker 3: people didn't like you, do a marvelous job.
38:02
Speaker 4: I'm not questioning that.
38:04
Speaker 3: But you do a marvelous job because you have found
38:08
Speaker 3: an audience for your.
38:10
Speaker 1: Produ So another was my power comes to the people
38:13
Speaker 1: as your absolutely, and if I just put on all
38:16
Speaker 1: of my favorites, then the public will clearly see that
38:18
Speaker 1: Donny who was sold out in there, they're right.
38:20
Speaker 4: Now. Look, I've been reading your book.
38:22
Speaker 3: It's a good book, and I recommend it to you,
38:24
Speaker 3: just as he recommended mine. But in that book you
38:28
Speaker 3: point out the difficulties you had getting into New York.
38:32
Speaker 3: Suppose you would have had to have government permission to
38:34
Speaker 3: go into New York. Do you think you would have
38:36
Speaker 3: had it any easier? Do you think you could have
38:38
Speaker 3: had as much independence as you've had?
38:40
Speaker 1: M H And under the Freedman Lasez fair broadcasting system,
38:45
Speaker 1: there would have been more opportunities for this.
38:47
Speaker 3: Absolutely, there would have been more stations there more would
38:52
Speaker 3: have been Instead of three big networks, you would have
38:54
Speaker 3: had a much broader group of stations. You would have
38:57
Speaker 3: been able to break in much sooner. I don't know
39:00
Speaker 3: whether that's a good thing or event thing, but what happened.
39:03
Speaker 2: Can we take one here? We got is the caller there?
39:06
Speaker 2: Just hang on a second. I'm doing my best. We'll
39:08
Speaker 2: be back in just a month.
39:18
Speaker 1: Milton Friedman is reachable via United States mail, government controlled
39:21
Speaker 1: as it is, and at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, California.
39:27
Speaker 1: The ZIP there is nine four three five. Okay, that's
39:30
Speaker 1: easy enough. In an age of bureaucratic numbers mumbo jumbo,
39:34
Speaker 1: this is relatively simple address.
39:36
Speaker 2: Let him know how you feel.
39:37
Speaker 5: I know you're their caller at Stanford, California.
39:39
Speaker 2: Is just one. I've got to get this in.
39:41
Speaker 1: Let's now one more time off the Ivory Tower. Your
39:46
Speaker 1: your statement against government growth and too much spending? Do
39:50
Speaker 1: I assume that you bring the same free to be
39:53
Speaker 1: irresponsible statements against military spending?
39:58
Speaker 5: Well one hundred and forty billion dollars.
40:01
Speaker 4: You say one hundred and forty binion.
40:03
Speaker 3: Twenty fifteen years ago, military spending was over twice as
40:07
Speaker 3: much as the spending of HW. Today, the spending of
40:11
Speaker 3: HW is over twice as much, is about twice as
40:15
Speaker 3: much as military spending fifteen twenty years ago. Before Vietnam,
40:20
Speaker 3: military spending was nine percent of the national income.
40:22
Speaker 4: Today it's between four and five percent.
40:24
Speaker 3: I said earlier the two basic functions of the government
40:28
Speaker 3: are to protect the nation against foreign enemies and to
40:31
Speaker 3: protect the citizen against his fellows. Military spending is essential
40:36
Speaker 3: for the first. Of course, if we could do it
40:38
Speaker 3: in a private enterprise way, it'd be a lot cheap.
40:40
Speaker 2: Would you like to try.
40:41
Speaker 4: I have never been able to.
40:42
Speaker 3: Figure out a way to turn the military the defense
40:45
Speaker 3: of the country over to private enterprise.
40:47
Speaker 4: I'd give a prize to anybody who can figure out.
40:49
Speaker 2: Professor Professor Friedman.
40:50
Speaker 1: There are critics who say that it already is, and
40:53
Speaker 1: that the reason old men declare wars is because they
40:56
Speaker 1: have a financial investment in the companies that make bombs
40:59
Speaker 1: and bullets and guns and uniforms.
41:00
Speaker 4: And all it takes to get to I don't believe
41:03
Speaker 4: that for a moment.
41:04
Speaker 3: I don't doubt that the people who have those indors
41:07
Speaker 3: try to exert their influence in that way.
41:09
Speaker 4: But this is so serious and so important a matter
41:13
Speaker 4: that I really think it's no rabbesty on what's going on.
41:16
Speaker 1: No one is saying it's a conscious effort, but the
41:19
Speaker 1: fact that the profit is there has got to influence
41:22
Speaker 1: behavior's good.
41:23
Speaker 4: I mean, that's a decision.
41:24
Speaker 3: You mean, that's the reason why our military spending has
41:26
Speaker 3: gone down so sharply.
41:28
Speaker 1: Are you one hundred and forty billion isn't enough for you?
41:31
Speaker 1: Do you know how much an aircraft carrier?
41:32
Speaker 4: Cause I got this just.
41:33
Speaker 5: Today this week from Senator Proxmyer.
41:35
Speaker 1: Five billion for the boat and five billion for the
41:38
Speaker 1: planes on a ten billion for one boat.
41:40
Speaker 2: How do you feel about that?
41:41
Speaker 3: I think it's a lot too much and might very
41:44
Speaker 3: likely if you could turn that over to private enterprise
41:47
Speaker 3: it would cost half as much. But we have to
41:49
Speaker 3: have a strong military. And at the moment, let me
41:53
Speaker 3: get to this because I think it's very important. If
41:55
Speaker 3: this country is fundamentally threatened. In my opinion, it has
41:59
Speaker 3: threatened much more by our weak position and foreign affairs
42:03
Speaker 3: than it is threatened by any mistakes that.
42:05
Speaker 4: We have made in economic management.
42:07
Speaker 3: We can recover from the mistakes in economic management, but
42:10
Speaker 3: if we put ourselves in a position and foreign policy
42:14
Speaker 3: of the kind we've been putting ourselves in, we cannot recover.
42:17
Speaker 4: We're through. It's a one day all.
42:19
Speaker 1: That's directly opposite the statements of many, many honorable, reasonable
42:23
Speaker 1: people who are saying it's the cost of bacon and
42:26
Speaker 1: the fact that the middle class can't make it to
42:28
Speaker 1: the next paycheck, and the fact that several thousand people
42:30
Speaker 1: in the automobile industry.
42:31
Speaker 5: Are out of work.
42:32
Speaker 1: That's going to threaten the integrity and strength of this country.
42:35
Speaker 1: Not a group of students somewhere.
42:37
Speaker 3: It's not when you talk about a group of students.
42:39
Speaker 3: I'm not concerned about the group of students. I'm concerned
42:42
Speaker 3: about the Russian armies on both sides of that strait.
42:44
Speaker 3: I'm concerned about the fact that, in our neglect, we
42:47
Speaker 3: permitted the Russian to take over the base of Aiden
42:49
Speaker 3: when the British left it in nineteen seventy one, and
42:52
Speaker 3: they have built up a major military base with airplanes
42:55
Speaker 3: and so on that they are now coming into Afghanistan.
42:58
Speaker 3: They've got both parts of the Gulf and the Pincers.
43:01
Speaker 3: Oh my, how unrealistic can you be not to look
43:04
Speaker 3: at what's been happening to the relative strength and position
43:08
Speaker 3: of the Russians on the one hand of ourselves in
43:10
Speaker 3: the other end. Do you think they're spending that money
43:12
Speaker 3: and devoting their energy to that in order to have it.
43:14
Speaker 4: Sit idle, all right?
43:15
Speaker 1: And what are you going to do with the workers
43:16
Speaker 1: who built all these airplanes after the order is canceled
43:19
Speaker 1: by the government. General dynamics in Fort Worth, Boeing and Seattle.
43:23
Speaker 1: What is the economists going to do to help the economy,
43:26
Speaker 1: the local economy when suddenly big Daddy government cuts off
43:29
Speaker 1: the god.
43:30
Speaker 3: A thing not a thing, and there's no reason to
43:34
Speaker 3: do anything because all of those people and the people
43:36
Speaker 3: who bid in that included in their bids and allowance
43:40
Speaker 3: for the possibility and the danger that they would be
43:42
Speaker 3: cut off, and they will have to adjust, just as all.
43:45
Speaker 4: The other people have to adjust.
43:46
Speaker 3: What are you going to do for the people who
43:48
Speaker 3: are out of work when the public at large suddenly
43:50
Speaker 3: changes from wanting the one kind of pair of shoes
43:54
Speaker 3: to another kind of pair of shoes. What are you
43:55
Speaker 3: going to do when the public at large decides it's
43:59
Speaker 3: not going to go in big cars, that's going to
44:01
Speaker 3: go in little cars. I don't want to do a thing.
44:02
Speaker 3: I want to let the private market work. The private
44:05
Speaker 3: market system is a system of profit and loss, and
44:09
Speaker 3: the lost part is just as essential as a profit part.
44:11
Speaker 3: It is a disgrace that we should be bailing out
44:14
Speaker 3: christ Chrysler ought to be allowed to go broke.
44:23
Speaker 1: All right, I know the caller is still there. All right,
44:27
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try and get you on. I really am,
44:29
Speaker 1: and I'm sorry, but I have to break down.
44:31
Speaker 2: We'll be in the Free Enterprise and call as a tease.
44:35
Speaker 5: We'll be back in a moment. Hi, I'm glad you waited.
44:45
Speaker 5: Sorry what you had a question?
44:47
Speaker 9: Yes, I would like to ask what Professor Freeman what
44:52
Speaker 9: the average middle income text pier can do to get
44:55
Speaker 9: to quit being taken to the cleaners by the I
44:58
Speaker 9: R S.
45:01
Speaker 2: Alright, just get a sack.
45:03
Speaker 3: I unfortunately, unfortunately, very little. I do not believe that
45:08
Speaker 3: you can find a solution to that problem as individuals.
45:12
Speaker 3: I think we can find a solution to that problem
45:14
Speaker 3: as citizens.
45:15
Speaker 2: Thanks very much to Milton.
45:17
Speaker 1: Free for yourself, and haven't I say, oh, free to
45:20
Speaker 1: choose the book, don't forget the book.
45:22
Speaker 5: I'm happy to show off the book.
45:24
Speaker 2: Have an I stay everybody