3 thoughts on “Two Points of View: Friedman and Klein”
The debate rages on: market versus statism. I am personally in favour of less government, but I also recognise that both efficiency and equity (justice) are important. Perhaps, a humane economy is what we should aim for. Is a well regulated market our answer?
What do you think? Sakmongkol, Sirusa, Bean and others, let us debate after viewing the above video clips.—Din Merican
Of course there ought to be regulation of markets and a lot more of it, as the current fiasco of “free markets” amply shows. By all means debate about it but for it to be meaningful it must include input on sustainability of an ever-growing population and its needs of resources. We are on a collision course here and if we do not quickly address our lifestyle on this planet we shall become extinct – sooner than most think.
Among economists, Friedman is known for his Consumption Theory and the famous equation MV = Price x Output. This belongs to the realm of Applied and Analytical Economics which Din Merican excelled in as an undergrad in the early 60s. My forte was political science and law.
Friedman was a Republican and I am a full blown Democrat. He was an advocate of the free market. I am not.
He said he did not know why human freedom was important to him. He just felt so. He believed people like to be free to make their own decisions and do not like to have decisions made for them. And that what’s good about the free market is that it brings people together i.e. people who normally hate each other and would kill each other if given the chance. It spells freedom and that to him is good.
I have seen and experienced first hand the working of a welfare state when I was living in Britain in the ‘80s.
I had a doctor and a dentist provided for me by the state at no expense. There was only a nominal sum to pay for the services of a dentist. The doctor would dispense medication at no cost to me. A rheumatologist in Malaysia in the 80s would have set me back by a minimum RM100 each visit not including medication. In the U.K. my two kids had free milk delivered to their doorsteps by the milkman every morning without fail, free education at state schools, free lunch and books and stationary provided by the state. As parents we were given weekly child benefit amounting to Sterling Pounds Fourteen – not a small sum those days. My wife who worked at a department store had supplementary income of Sterling Pounds One Hundred Thirty paid to her by the state each week. We qualified for rent free accommodation provided by the state if we had wanted that.
In short we lived a comfortable life.
It is a far cry from living in a capitalist system like the U.S. with its free market and free enterprise. Over here if you don’t work you don’t have health insurance. U.S. President Obama is trying to change some of that. Without health insurance you cannot afford to see a doctor. And you can only live off your weekly unemployment benefit calculated at 60% of your weekly pay until you find a job.
This is the gist of what Friedman has had to say about the welfare state.
“It is very hard to achieve good objectives through bad means. The means used are bad when it involves some people spending other people’s money for objectives determined by a third group of people. Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody has the same dedication to achieve somebody else’s objective that he displays when he pursues his own.”
“Beyond this the programs have an insidious effect on the moral fiber of both those who administer programs and those who are supposed to benefit from them. They tend to rot away the very fabric that holds a decent society together.”
This, I must say, has not been my personal experience with the only brush I had with a welfare state.
Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Blogger 
The debate rages on: market versus statism. I am personally in favour of less government, but I also recognise that both efficiency and equity (justice) are important. Perhaps, a humane economy is what we should aim for. Is a well regulated market our answer?
What do you think? Sakmongkol, Sirusa, Bean and others, let us debate after viewing the above video clips.—Din Merican
Of course there ought to be regulation of markets and a lot more of it, as the current fiasco of “free markets” amply shows. By all means debate about it but for it to be meaningful it must include input on sustainability of an ever-growing population and its needs of resources. We are on a collision course here and if we do not quickly address our lifestyle on this planet we shall become extinct – sooner than most think.
Among economists, Friedman is known for his Consumption Theory and the famous equation MV = Price x Output. This belongs to the realm of Applied and Analytical Economics which Din Merican excelled in as an undergrad in the early 60s. My forte was political science and law.
Friedman was a Republican and I am a full blown Democrat. He was an advocate of the free market. I am not.
He said he did not know why human freedom was important to him. He just felt so. He believed people like to be free to make their own decisions and do not like to have decisions made for them. And that what’s good about the free market is that it brings people together i.e. people who normally hate each other and would kill each other if given the chance. It spells freedom and that to him is good.
I have seen and experienced first hand the working of a welfare state when I was living in Britain in the ‘80s.
I had a doctor and a dentist provided for me by the state at no expense. There was only a nominal sum to pay for the services of a dentist. The doctor would dispense medication at no cost to me. A rheumatologist in Malaysia in the 80s would have set me back by a minimum RM100 each visit not including medication. In the U.K. my two kids had free milk delivered to their doorsteps by the milkman every morning without fail, free education at state schools, free lunch and books and stationary provided by the state. As parents we were given weekly child benefit amounting to Sterling Pounds Fourteen – not a small sum those days. My wife who worked at a department store had supplementary income of Sterling Pounds One Hundred Thirty paid to her by the state each week. We qualified for rent free accommodation provided by the state if we had wanted that.
In short we lived a comfortable life.
It is a far cry from living in a capitalist system like the U.S. with its free market and free enterprise. Over here if you don’t work you don’t have health insurance. U.S. President Obama is trying to change some of that. Without health insurance you cannot afford to see a doctor. And you can only live off your weekly unemployment benefit calculated at 60% of your weekly pay until you find a job.
This is the gist of what Friedman has had to say about the welfare state.
“It is very hard to achieve good objectives through bad means. The means used are bad when it involves some people spending other people’s money for objectives determined by a third group of people. Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody has the same dedication to achieve somebody else’s objective that he displays when he pursues his own.”
“Beyond this the programs have an insidious effect on the moral fiber of both those who administer programs and those who are supposed to benefit from them. They tend to rot away the very fabric that holds a decent society together.”
This, I must say, has not been my personal experience with the only brush I had with a welfare state.