Nobel Prize Winning Economist Milton Friedman On Lord Bernanke: "My Preference Would Be To Abolish The Federal Reserve" (2006)
Video - Excerpts from an interview with Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn on May 22, 2006, in which Friedman discusses the dangers of big government and advocates abolishing the Fed.
In Friedman's defense, his comments on Bernanke were before the bailouts which Friedman would have hated passionately were he still alive.
And to Friedman's discredit, he was a brash supporter of free markets who didn't anticipate the massive fraud that would result from bad regulators and non-existent regulation. Witness markets for CDS, derivatives and Goldman Sachs creating synthetic CDOs designed to fail, to name a few examples.
We must have punishment and jail time for criminals, or greed has won.
#
Video - MPP interview with Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman on Marijuana and drug prohibition.
#
Charlie Rose - An appreciation of Milton Friedman
#
Feb 10, 2011 at 5:51 PM
Reader Comments (26)
http://risnews.edgl.com/retail-news/TJX-to-Close-A-J--Wright-Division-and-Shut-71-Stores-by-February-201157056
outdoor survival youtube channel with dozens of videos...pretty interesting stuff...
Read more: Icelanders vote for ordinary people to draft constitution - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Icelanders-vote-for-ordinary-people-to-draft-constitution/articleshow/7002961.cms#ixzz18AqFJz9O
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302420.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/business/economy/14tax.html
The rise of long-term Treasury interest rates is evidence that investors are bullish on growth.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009621740764118.html
this is utter nonsense...rates are rising because of the rresponsible tax package...bond traders are selling treasuries...
There's no design problem, simply a marketing challenge.
One that is not debt created, like Lincoln's Greenback? Lincoln recognized the threat of banking cartels when he wrote:
“The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
Abraham Lincoln Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865
The Europeans recognized the danger to their financial cartels when the London times published in 1865 this piece regarding our government printing its own currency as Lincoln wished to do:
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
Hazard Circular London Times 1865.
Lincoln was later killed...
"Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
We probably could not dare stand that could we?
"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people. "
Thomas Edison, The New York Times
Once upon a time intelligent people inhabited America, where did they go? and why is it difficult to understand?
The reason that precious metals hold such a massive key to personal sovereigty is because real assets are the only way to decentralize a money system. We cannot all run around writing IOU's ...... the government may get jealous !!! LMAO
hey Mr. Bernanke ..... don't f##k with me. I was born on the 4th of July !
It is sad when people attack free markets. Currently, we have no free markets. They are rigged in so many ways that they can not be considered free anymore. This is why the collapse of 2008 was so extensive and this is why we are heading for complete meltdown of financial system in near future.
Free markets start with market freely deciding about interest rate, free choice of money for the people, free choices about medical care, free choice if and how to save for the retirement, free markets allow anybody to compete without the hassle of government regulations imposed to protect the big corporations or even to help them consolidate their position into a true monopoly.
best,
Radek
Of course you have punishment for criminals who violate property rights and commit fraud. This is part of the free market, which recognizes individual rights. But you don't have a regulator come in and claim to ensure that various companies are operating perfectly honestly, competently, and correctly. This creates the problem. When people know they have to do their due diligence (which can be done by hiring a private company which has a much greater interest than the government in inspecting companies--when they fail they go bankrupt, when government agencies fail they are rewarded) to avoid the hassle of being burned (and potential lawsuits for retribution), the best regulation ensues. GOVERNMENT IS THE WORST REGULATOR. Come on Daily Bail, get this one straight.
quis ipsos custodiet custodes
Thank you for your response.
I fully support punishment and jail time for criminals that breach freely decided/agreed upon contracts between two parties. No problems here.
However, currently the strong policing mechanism/approach has manifested itself in enormous regulations that are full of holes/exploits/waivers so they only increase barriers of entry for the competition. This regulation created situation when few players dominate the markets and the collective greed of those few makes their failure equal to the implosion of the whole market. We have nonfree markets where individuals are collectively lazy and require goverment to do their job. This reliance on government gives false hope that sooner or later will make the whole system implode.
In my view. In truly free markets not rigged by government regulations the public is forced to be careful about their decisions and this daily need of the public to make the right decision (e.g. what bank to trust) result in self-regulation of entities (e.g. banks) that are prone to greed. Public scrutiny will reveal fraud much quicker and reliably than government institution responsible for enforcing the regulations. This already assumes that legislation branch gets it right in getting proper regulations, which is rather big leap of faith ;). The strong policy mechanism reliable over long time periods can only come from the public. This is what makes the whole system robust and less likely to implode completely. There will be implosions possibly more often but smaller scale.
This is why I said it is sad when free markets are blamed for all problems today when it is this idea of strong centralized policing mechanism that is a single point of failure that creates systemic risks sooner or later in rigged markets which by many are considered free.
Free markets are not free from fraud/greed but if the whole society gets greedy collectively then they deserve the implosion. It will be a good lesson learnt for 2-3 generations. Regulators and politicians do not learn enough or have no incentives to act as if they have learnt anything. It is enough to look at financial reform after 2008 crash to make your mind about ability of government to introduce a strong policing mechanism.
best,
Radek
Many times in my life I have heard calls of eliminating regulation, or even the compromise of "self" regulation. While fully understanding the problems with existing regulatory entities, the proposals of no/ self regulation can only work in a vacuum of time and space where all hearts of men are pure and unbounded by the lusts of greed and avarice. to illustrate, lets look at an industry regulated by the FDA/ EPA, as the financial sector is to complicated to show general cause/ effect scenario's.
Let's look at the recent violations of Jack DeCoster and his son Peter. Records showed that the DeCoster egg farms tested positive 73 times in two years for the bacteria strain linked to the illnesses that recalled half a billion eggs.
The elder DeCoster, who has a record of violating environmental regulations, immigration laws and worker rights and animal rights, has been branded a habitual offender by the state of Iowa. Peter DeCoster disclosed in the statement that subsequent sampling of the farms' eggs turned up positive for salmonella.
Jack has continued to pay his fines, and continues to do business. So my question is, how would no regulation make his operation safer when with regulation Jack is already listed as a habitual offender. Please check the link and watch the video.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38741401/ns/health-food_safety/
In Ohio we are experiencing the same groundwater contamination to the point that Lake St. Marys was closed last year due to a toxic algal bloom that produces a nuerotoxin that induced permanent damage of the type that a nerve gas agent could inflict. Again, how will lack of regulation make this better? The Grand Lehman Brothers Governor is already looking for ways to dump this onto the backs of Ohio citizens with no talk of making the culprits clean up the mess they have created.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/31/15484/2897
On the same hand, these large agribusinesses that are seeking no/ self regulation are seeking to outlaw many small producers of the whole food movement. Even when whole food producers have not had anyone get sick by their products, how can you justify these Gestapo like tactics to support the businesses who seek to monopolize their unclean and toxic enterprises with no or "self" regulation?
http://vimeo.com/16513455
I eagerly await your response to how no regulation will suddenly clean everything up and make the world whole again, and America strong with baited breath.
P.S. I happen to like Lake St. Marys, so this shit pisses me the f@ck off. To any apolagistas and illusionary "Kumbayah" ass wipes of "everything will be better if we let things regulate themselves". read the papers, can you say monopolies will rise and safety and small businessmen will fall, and America will be for the worse?
Note to pundits;
I am a "criminal" of the whole food movement, and in over twenty years no one has EVER gotten sick from any of my food or eggs. As is the case with my parents before me, and theirs before them, etc..
I see you are very pationate. Good.
First, I would recommend reading the chapter 3 of the following book
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
If you have time the whole book is an excelent read.
I will try to address your questions.
1) The case of Jack DeCoster, which I am not familiar with (I live outside USA). You can clearly see that government regulations do not work. In free market it is easy to deal with people like him. First, the competition will make sure that his lack of proper conduct is visible to customers. Second, if his business conduct endangers people's life then he pays fine after the court case to pay for the damages he has caused to his customers. If the damages are great or the publicity of his bad actions is sufficient he will be out of business. Problem is solved.
2) The ground water contamination problem. Water is covered by property rights. By polluting the water you damage the property and the property owner (state?) has the right to sue and get enough money to clean up the mess. Offenders are
put out of the business by independent courts using a simple rule of property protection and payments to resolve the damage.
3) Your point about agro-business trying to monopolize food. Free markets will allow people like you to speak and make their point to anybody who will listen without the worry of being prosecuted. Smart people will listen to you and if you educate enough customers the Gestapo like tactics would never work because in free markets you can not force customer what to buy and you can not prevent the seller to offer the product.
It is sad that you are clearly a victim of government imposed regulation yet you can not see that freedom of choice for you and your customers will make your life happy and fulfilling because you could get a great deal of satisfaction of being a great advocate for the whole food movement without risk of being prosecuted and put in jail for trying to help people take better decisions.
all the best,
Radek
In response to #1, men Like Jack have very little competition due to their size, and do everything in their power to suppress competition. As I stated above, "While fully understanding the problems with existing regulatory entities". Your theory should work, but there are two problems with it.
1. The masses do not pay attention to anything, and will continue to buy whatever is placed on the store shelves in front of them.
2. If the heat gets to great, men like Jack in all forms of business merely change the names on the "egg carton" and continue business as usual.
In response to #2, completely false in America, and will always be false as long as we have a graft system.
In response to #3, big business will continue to try to get rid of the little guy through the campaign contribution/ lobbying process to further secure higher profits for themselves even if completely deregulated. Naturally candidates will continue to accept these "gratuities" from them to aid them in their desires.
While I take seriously the responsibility of clean and untainted food, as well as proper care of animals, many I know do not And you will never deregulate them into caring about anything other than the money. I am not a victim yet...
As I said before "the proposals of no/ self regulation can only work in a vacuum of time and space where all hearts of men are pure and unbounded by the lusts of greed and avarice." How do you propose that no regulation will suddenly make men more pure of heart and responsible to the community and customers over the wants of self and greater monopoly. Though Jack DeCoster and many others agree with you whole heartedly, as did those who lobbied for, voted for, and signed into law the Gramm Leach act (deregulation in the financial services industry) which critics say had a lot to do with where we are at now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
I will be reading that book.
“Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal.”
Frederic Bastiat
A bit of background information. I live in Switzerland and I look at your problems from the attitude of the person living in this wonderful country. I am not a Swiss myself, so my admiration of this country should speak volumes.
In Switzerland, there is a direct democracy and the masses make the choices themselves and have to live with the consequences of their choices. If the masses buy whatever is placed in front of them on the shelves they deserve what they get. Here, I of course assume that the information about the product is given and the person can make a proper choice but simply does not care. You can not treat adults like children and use the laws to protect them from making mistakes affecting only their lives.
You can not legislate morality. The world will always have people who have no moral values whatsoever. The problem is that if you try to legislate morality then you have "elite" doing it and they are being influenced by immoral people and you end up with the system that actually inhibits exposure of immoral behavior. Again, the example of Jack, if you have free markets you will have his competition watching every new scam of Jack and making sure that he is forever ban from the market by making their customers aware of his next trick.
My point is that self-regulation is in the best interest of the companies in the free market because they are extremely vulnerable if they misbehave in the eyes of the public and the public learns about it. I assume that public on average has much higher moral standards then their leaders so public scrutiny is better than government induced scrutiny acording to the law written by "elite".
USA was once a great country. Unfortunately, people allowed to be told and lead by their leaders. Now, USA has became a country lead by corporations, so in other words a fascist country.
USA is so much gone the wrong way that even people like you can not see the light. You should come to Switzerland and recover your hope in free markets and masses. The masses here can defy their "leaders" and suprise with their wisdom. Of course, they make mistakes but at least they are allowed to.
You are of course free to disagree with me and say that I am out of touch with the reality. However, do not mistake my ideological position with understanding of current state of the affairs. If you have the position that system is so wrong that it can not be changed into a correct one then you deserve the system you live in.
best,
Radek
"My point is that self-regulation is in the best interest of the companies in the free market because they are extremely vulnerable if they misbehave in the eyes of the public and the public learns about it. I assume that public on average has much higher moral standards then their leaders so public scrutiny is better than government induced scrutiny acording to the law written by "elite". "
Explain this "high road" approach in regard to those who survived the Holocaust and then were denied their life savings by Swiss banks. Thousands of persecuted Jewish families entrusted their fortunes to the anonymity of a Swiss numbered account. While these same banks funneled millions to fugitive Nazis in South America, the Jewish victims were systematically denied information or access to family accounts. Thousands were told, that funds could not be released without a death certificate to prove the demise of parents or siblings killed in Hitler's extermination camps.
After the war, over a quarter of a million Jewish survivors lived in Displaced Persons Camps for months or even years. The Swiss government stonewalled requests regarding bank accounts and blocked all attempts to the use the huge amount of "heirless assets" for refugee aid.
The German state had exhausted all foreign exchange and Central Bank bullion by 1941. This led to a crisis which it overcame by looting the treasuries of occupied countries, melting down the bullion, stamping it with the Reichsbank symbol and funneling it to the Swiss. By November 1942, this smelting operation came to include large amounts of dental gold, jewelry, rings, etc. The gold was refined and returned to banks in the form of gold bars, mixing together personal gold with "monetary gold."
Switzerland was the only country that would accept the obviously looted gold. Is this an example of high moral standards causing public scrutiny to force business to do the right thing? Even in America a missing person only has to be missing a set period of time before being declared dead for the dispensation of their legal affairs.
By the way, before you bring it up, I am well aware of the U.S. involvement in the crimes committed by the Nazi’s as well.
Since you cannot legislate morality, what is your take on the current church sex scandal in Switzerland, sex for Visa‘s scandal a few years ago, or the Verdingkind?
“if you have free markets you will have his competition watching every new scam of Jack and making sure that he is forever ban from the market by making their customers aware of his next trick. “
How has this ever watchful eye of competition or the masses worked for getting the legitimate assets of holocaust survivors restored?
Many here are aware of Benito’s claim of "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power"
Direct Democracy has its pitfalls as well, one being the need for a voter population to be interested, and actively involved in the process. Another being complex policies may not be understood by all voters. It is therefore imperative that voters be properly educated. And voters may be susceptible to arguments proposed by the more charismatic speaker (or politician) rather than coming to a decision based on the facts.
You do remarkably well with your English by the way.
Thank you for a nice discussion. I am sorry if I have offended you by attacking USA. There are too many Americans who have no clue what is going on in their backyard and have allowed their country to change from one of the best countries to
the one I even refuse to visit. USA has great people like Ron Paul who woke me up to what is going around and it is a shame that the majority of Americans are not listening to him. I should stick to the subject of free markets.
Yes, Switzerland is far from perfect moral country. However, you can hold Swiss people accountable for the misbehavior of their country. They have no excuse because they could have introduced the law that will prevent the banks from hiding behind the law requiring presentation of death certificate to release funds. Unfortunately, there is not enough moral pressure from the society (world) on Swiss people to do the right thing. People are too busy working hard to get quickly depreciating fiat money so they have no time to learn what is going around them and apply public pressure to get the right thing done.
About accepting looted gold. Here, I can understand the Swiss people. They were left alone only as long as they served the purpose. It is hard to do the right thing at the gun point. They did not do well but who did?
I can assure you that Swiss people will if are not already paying the high price for not watching their banks and central bank carefully. In 2008, they had to save UBS. I talked with very high official working at that time in 2008. His mind set is that they will save UBS or any other Swiss bank in a hearbeat. Their banking sector has wisen up a bit but probably not sufficiently. Their central bank has lost billions of Swiss Francs on botched forex intervention. They have abandonned gold backing in 1998 and they are already paying the price. In the next financial crisis caused by sovereign defaults/dollar hiperinflation they may end up in a mess like Iceland or at least loose huge amounts of their gold reserves in order to save their banking sector. They will pay the price and learn the lesson. They should pay the price.
You mentioned all the bad things and use this as proof that self-regulation is not working. However, in my eyes this is not a proof at all. My stance is that society can not be perfect, there will be always immoral people around you. In a free market, people have to be more aware of what is going on around them. This knowledge brings actions to remedy the problem. Most of people act in their best interest so as soon as they learn about Jack they will make sure that they are not fooled the second time. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I fully stand behind it. There is a nice book Wisdom of the Crowds. You could paraphrase the message of this book and say that regulation imposed by the crowd is better than regulation imposed by centralized single entity (government).
People are waking up. I have lost confidence in the ability of government regulation in 2008. Only the people who do their homework and avoid dangers lurking in the financial system, food, water, electric smog, ... will live a healthy and happy life. Unfortunately for many they will learn the lesson too late. The only thing I/we can do is educate that is why I read and discuss on forums like this. In Switzerland, the direct democracy is already in place so as soon as the people are forced to learn about the issue they can institute change quickly. I would not be suprised if Switzerland is the first country to come back to gold backing of their money (although China/India may be first).
BTW, I talked with one bad/awfull Swiss politician. He is regularly elected. He detests direct democracy, because he falsely believes that he can do better for the people. Therefore, the Swiss people are also lacking in the education aspect, too many of them do not understand what makes their country great. It is not majority yet, but it is a worrying sign.
all the best,
Radek
The majority of people when asked the most basic questions like about food security merely shrug and say "I don't know, somebody will think of something...", and you can forget asking the complex questions like fiat/ finance.
Society as a whole has a long way to go before they are ready for a system as you describe, the way they are today they would merely bounce back and forth between one fraud/ scam/ ponzi scheme and the next. Granted, they would learn the hard way eventually, but at what cost in the meantime...
Till then, laws that set minimum requirements (regulations) will have to try to suffice, I don't know how it is there, but here you can not even get 50% of the people to vote, but 100% will gripe. Therefore the majority of the minority is what dictates to the majority.
Hence the generational rape continues...
"Regulation imposed by the crowd" can get a little messy at times Radek, "mob rule" can be a overly volatile tool to rely on.
Check out the homepage at the top, Steve (DB) posts many articles, some from across the pond even on how the financial crisis and bailouts are effecting the globe. You might find the site interesting, it is about raising awareness. And we all want the perpetrators of these crimes prosecuted, but the lobbyists will probably get it buried as usual.