HOME

IMF-HOME

Search:

business internet free publish marketing sale buy sell profit

Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and the Profit Motive 2of2

MyBecause Selected Video
MyBecause Selected Video MyBecause Selected Video
MyBecause Selected Video

This clip is from the 15-part lecture series, "Milton Friedman Speaks" http://www.ideachannel.com/pro... Transcript available via FreedomChannel: http://freedomchannel.blogspot... student poses a series of question on based on Friedman's notion that people should pursue their own self-interest. The student points out that he'd read that Friedman had previously come out against disaster aid for victims of a flood in Pennsylvania. Friedman corrected the questioner and noted that he did not come out against private aid for flood victims but instead was against the Federal Government providing discounted flood insurance in advance to home purchasers which motivated people to build houses in areas where they otherwise would not have been able to obtain insurance privately. If not for the discounted insurance, it's likely many of the flooded houses would never have been built in the first place as it wouldn't have been in peoples self-interest.The student went on to note that it was recently reported that an old man in Ohio died when the electric company turned off his power when he'd failed to pay his electric bill. Was it moral for the company to act in it's own self-interest to do so? Friedman responded by asking what if the electric company never turned off the power for anyone? Who would pay the cost--the people who own or work at the electric company? It would be unjust to impose that responsibility on individuals who are running an honest business of providing electricity. Friedman suggests that the true responsibility lies on the mans neighbors and friends who were not charitable enough to allow him to meet the electric bills.Finally the student uses the example of Ford deciding not to install a $13 block of plastic which would prevent it's Pinto cars from exploding in a rear-end collision. Ford estimated such a move would cost 200 lives a year at a cost of $200,000 per life lost. They multiplied and found that it wasn't worth it to install the plastic block. He asked if a corporation seeking it's own self-interest was a good thing in this case? Friedman responded by asking, what if it cost $1 billion to save each life, should Ford have put in the block? It's simply not practical to put an infinite value on an individuals life. If it took $1 billion in resources to keep one individual safe, and acquiring those resources meant that a million people must starve, it's a bad deal. Friedman concludes that he doesn't know if the $200,000 number that Ford used was the right number to maximize the overall benefits, but at the end of the day the principle is that we can't simply protect ourselves from everything and impose that cost on others. Friedman posits that the question the student should be raising, is should Ford be required to attach the statement to the car, "we've made this car $13 cheaper, and therefore it is X% more risky for you to buy it".See also:Free to Choose - All 15 episodes streaming online for free http://www.ideachannel.tvA history of Free to Choose http://www.freetochoose.com

Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm
Author: Sidewinder77

Length: 06:55
Rating: 4.83
Views: 26038

Tags: Capitalism  Corporations  Documentary  Ford  Freedom  Friedman  Milton  Nader  Pinto  Politics  Profits  Ralph  Socialism  Subsidies  

Video Url:


Embed Code:

Video Comments

copenhagen1221 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
and we must depend on private "certification" institutions (which do exist today) to test these products and give their approval. Companies that are selling these products will be happy to pay them to test because it will lead to an increase in sales as consumers will not buy untested, uncertified products. Certification institutions will not be corrupted either because they depend on consumer trust to make profit. If someone dies, the certification company loses consumer trust and profit.
SourAlex85 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Good point. Consumer education should play a bigger role in a country who's economy is based on free market principles.
Bepartofmynovel (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
well, this kid had some good examples but poor arguments. He should have asked Friedman about his wrong assumptions of "full market information". Consumers do not know the perils of the products they are buying most of the times, because companies hide those facts, or those facts are hard to obtain for the consumers. Goods and services that can be dangerous to consumers, such as medical treatments and also cars, should be subject to government regulation to protect consumers...
jiujitsuhath (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Yeah he did!
milfhuntergk (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Wow. He pwned that kid.
paupmaster2k (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Principle: A fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived. Principles govern. Just think through it and you will find this to be self evident.
UWBADGER1 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Where are his "concrete examples"? He failed to make a single valid point that Friedman couldn't crush!
zsylvana (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Is it the "F-Twist" you arguing about?Friedman versus Samuelson,Robinson and Lester 1963?It was a methodological discussion.MIT,Harvard and Columbia critisized Chicago-School.
cjanne9 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
The Friedman controversy originates from qrituue of Friedman, M. (1953) "The Methodology of Positive Economics"", in: Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press"Friedman distinguishes assumptions of a theory (like utility and profit maximization) from implications of a theory, like equilibrium prices going up or down as a result of certain variables of the theory going up or down.
cjanne9 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Friedman opposes the idea of evaluating a theory by testing the realism of its assumptions. He opposes the idea of abandoning assumptions when they are discovered to be not realistic.A first group erring in this respect, according to Friedman, are those abandoning the assumptions of "perfectness" of competition an of monopoly in analysis market price formation. In the time Friedman wrote, E.H. Chamberlin (The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Un. Press, 1933)

Internet Money Formula Selected Business Video © 2007-2008 All Rights Reserved.