WEBVTT

NOTE On Milton Friedman

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.800
Our speaker really needs no introduction. We've all known him for a good many years.

2
00:00:08.800 --> 00:00:16.000
When I first met him in the Mises Seminars way back in 1950, 51 and so forth, he was going for his doctorate

3
00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:20.000
and he was having his troubles up at Columbia where he got all three of his degrees.

4
00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:26.000
And finally when Eisenhower was kind enough to inflict Arthur Burns on us the first time,

5
00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:36.000
The Panic of 1819

6
00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:00.800
and his little pamphlet on money. What has the government done to our money?

7
00:01:00.800 --> 00:01:09.240
Murray is an individualist. He's flirted with a new left, but he's got disenchanted with them

8
00:01:09.240 --> 00:01:14.320
for a little bit, and he asked them to rest in peace, and now he's calling them the loony left.

9
00:01:14.320 --> 00:01:19.760
In his latest publication, he's also editor of this libertarian forum,

10
00:01:19.760 --> 00:01:49.760
Dr. Murray Rothbard

11
00:01:49.760 --> 00:01:52.760
and it gives me pleasure to present Dr. Murray Rothbard.

12
00:01:52.760 --> 00:01:57.760
Thank you very much, Percy.

13
00:01:57.760 --> 00:01:58.760
Yes, sir, any way you wish.

14
00:01:58.760 --> 00:01:59.760
Thank you very much, Percy.

15
00:01:59.760 --> 00:02:00.760
Don't throw bricks.

16
00:02:00.760 --> 00:02:01.760
Right.

17
00:02:01.760 --> 00:02:05.760
It's a pleasure being here again.

18
00:02:05.760 --> 00:02:08.760
I'm not quite a Milton Friedman generation.

19
00:02:08.760 --> 00:02:10.760
That's sort of a petty point.

20
00:02:10.760 --> 00:02:13.760
I'm a little bit younger than he is.

21
00:02:13.760 --> 00:02:17.760
Sort that into the record.

22
00:02:17.760 --> 00:02:23.760
I think a lot of us, a lot of people seem to have been afflicted with an excess of Friedman worship.

23
00:02:23.760 --> 00:02:28.760
So I'm not going to stress the good points that Friedman has done in the past few years.

24
00:02:28.760 --> 00:02:32.760
I think most people are familiar with it.

25
00:02:32.760 --> 00:02:38.760
I might even be so unkind as to paraphrase Friedman's mentor, Henry Simons,

26
00:02:38.760 --> 00:02:41.760
wrote an article about Alvin Hanson one time.

27
00:02:41.760 --> 00:02:46.760
Hanson being the top left-wing Keynesian in the past years.

28
00:02:46.760 --> 00:02:53.760
The Press has a very short memory, so if somebody comes up with an idea and nobody's said it for the last three years, it's immediately half-finished.

29
00:03:16.760 --> 00:03:21.880
was a great new idea, a great new discovery, and the same thing has happened to Friedman.

30
00:03:21.880 --> 00:03:27.320
Almost everything he says is a complete reincarnation of what, for example, Irving Fischer had said

31
00:03:27.320 --> 00:03:32.120
40 years ago, 30 years ago, but since the collective memory of the press and even the

32
00:03:32.120 --> 00:03:37.720
economics profession is very short, nobody points this out. So Friedman has discovered

33
00:03:37.720 --> 00:03:43.560
all sorts of so-called laws, which are simply rediscoveries or restatements of what Fischer

34
00:03:43.560 --> 00:03:59.080
The interest rate rises during inflation, especially during the later stages of inflation,

35
00:03:59.080 --> 00:04:05.160
because as prices are going up, they have a discount, a positive price discount, a premium

36
00:04:05.160 --> 00:04:11.280
on the interest rate to account for the prices rising.

37
00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:17.520
So that the creditor is demanding a six percent return, for example, and prices are going

38
00:04:17.520 --> 00:04:22.200
up six percent a year, obviously you have to ask a lot more than six percent to overcome

39
00:04:22.200 --> 00:04:24.520
the inflation.

40
00:04:24.520 --> 00:04:27.600
So freedom is supposed to have had this great new discovery in the economics profession

41
00:04:27.600 --> 00:04:32.000
now sort of a tizzy and a tizzy about that, and of course Fisher had said exactly the

42
00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:36.280
same thing about 40, 50 years ago, and Professor Mises had said the same thing at his work

43
00:04:36.280 --> 00:04:41.140
and so forth, but they say the collective memory of the press and the economics profession

44
00:04:41.140 --> 00:04:55.140
Friedman's general theory about money and the business cycle is essentially Fisher rediscovered and with a lot of statistics added on to it.

45
00:04:55.140 --> 00:05:02.140
I'm going to talk tonight essentially about the political rather than the methodological critique of Friedman.

46
00:05:02.140 --> 00:05:09.140
I can say a lot about the methodology, but I think in this sort of gathering I think we can stress the political economy aspect.

47
00:05:09.140 --> 00:05:18.640
I just want to say in passing that Friedman is probably the outstanding proponent in methodology of an extreme variant of logical positivism.

48
00:05:18.640 --> 00:05:24.640
In other words, the major opponent of Professor Mises' methodology, so to speak.

49
00:05:24.640 --> 00:05:34.640
Friedman is so extreme that he says that a theoretical assumption not only doesn't have to be proven, it can even be false and still be a correct theory.

50
00:05:34.640 --> 00:05:40.640
It doesn't matter if the assumptions are false, he says, as long as the predictions are correct, which are based on these false assumptions.

51
00:05:40.640 --> 00:05:50.640
This is an extreme version of positivist methodology, and this is the exact counter to everything that praxeology holds dear.

52
00:05:50.640 --> 00:05:56.640
But I don't want to talk about methodology tonight, I just want to mention that in passing.

53
00:05:56.640 --> 00:06:01.640
First, and I'm not going to deal too much with this either, is the whole field of monopoly and competition.

54
00:06:01.640 --> 00:06:07.640
It's true that in practice, Friedman has come a long way from the original Henry Simons position,

55
00:06:07.640 --> 00:06:13.640
the original Henry Simons position which was written in a really screwball book, I think in 1934 called

56
00:06:13.640 --> 00:06:20.640
A Positive Programme for Laissez-Faire, which I recommend everybody read because it really states the Chicago school position

57
00:06:20.640 --> 00:06:25.640
very clearly, the political position of the Chicago school with great clarity.

58
00:06:25.640 --> 00:06:30.920
Clarity, and essentially Simon said that every corporation above the size of a small blacksmith's

59
00:06:30.920 --> 00:06:36.320
shop should be broken up, be trust-busted by the government, and reduce down the blacksmith's

60
00:06:36.320 --> 00:06:40.960
shop size so that we can all have perfect competition, we can enjoy the benefits of

61
00:06:40.960 --> 00:06:44.040
perfection in competition.

62
00:06:44.040 --> 00:06:49.360
And this I say was the original Chicago position, it came quite away from that, happily.

63
00:06:49.360 --> 00:06:53.680
And Friedman today doesn't take this position, he says, well, he recognizes the major source

64
00:06:53.680 --> 00:06:59.680
in the course of monopoly today as government privileges, government regulation and subsidies and so forth.

65
00:06:59.680 --> 00:07:03.680
But still there's a canker there. The theory is still there.

66
00:07:03.680 --> 00:07:08.680
The theory being the Chicago position of perfect competition, in quotes, is better than imperfect.

67
00:07:08.680 --> 00:07:15.680
In other words, that a firm of a constant demand curve, a horizontal demand curve, is somehow better and superior and more pure,

68
00:07:15.680 --> 00:07:21.680
less and more moral than a firm in a state which faces a falling demand curve.

69
00:07:21.680 --> 00:07:28.000
So this idealization of perfect competition still remains even though it's played down now in practice

70
00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:32.000
in the Friedman position, but it's still there to plague us in the future because

71
00:07:33.200 --> 00:07:38.160
sometime in the future we'll get this, we'll again hear the cry from the Chicago school,

72
00:07:38.160 --> 00:07:41.920
such and such a corporation should be broken up because it's too big and it's facing a

73
00:07:41.920 --> 00:07:46.240
falling demand curve and so forth. We can expect it at any time, put it that way.

74
00:07:46.240 --> 00:07:58.240
Just as Professor Stiegler, Friedman's most distinguished associate, said about 15 years ago that U.S. deals should be broken up into its constituent parts because it was monopolistic,

75
00:07:58.240 --> 00:08:06.240
I don't know if he still says that. He's come a long way too for the last 20 years. But as I say, the theoretical structure still remains.

76
00:08:06.240 --> 00:08:13.240
But I don't want to deal too much with monopoly and competition either because this is, again, more theoretical than a political position at the present time.

77
00:08:13.240 --> 00:08:19.240
Let's get to Friedman's big argument for government intervention in general, which is the so-called neighborhood effect.

78
00:08:19.240 --> 00:08:25.240
In this particular, I want to talk about the external benefit part of neighborhood effect.

79
00:08:25.240 --> 00:08:33.240
In other words, the idea that if two or three people are doing something which another set of people are benefiting from but aren't paying for,

80
00:08:33.240 --> 00:08:38.240
this is a terrible, terrible thing, and these people should be forced to pay for it. This is one version of it.

81
00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:43.440
Now, in practice, again, in practice Friedman doesn't push this to a great extent, he essentially says, well,

82
00:08:43.440 --> 00:08:51.140
this is really limited, we limit the application of this to urban parks, central park, and so it should be governmental because

83
00:08:51.140 --> 00:08:55.940
you can watch the park and not pay for it, and therefore, it's a terrible thing, you should be forced to pay for it.

84
00:08:55.940 --> 00:08:59.840
And also education, which is another big, of course, a very big item,

85
00:08:59.840 --> 00:09:04.960
which is in favor of government being up to its neck in, for the same reason.

86
00:09:04.960 --> 00:09:08.600
But in general he restricts it more or less to those areas.

87
00:09:08.600 --> 00:09:10.680
But my contention is that it can be used,

88
00:09:10.680 --> 00:09:12.360
the same argument can be used for almost anything,

89
00:09:12.360 --> 00:09:14.280
to justify almost any act of government intervention

90
00:09:14.280 --> 00:09:17.200
whatsoever, that freedom is really unjustly limiting it

91
00:09:17.200 --> 00:09:18.600
once you accept the argument.

92
00:09:20.720 --> 00:09:23.040
For example, one of my favorite examples,

93
00:09:23.040 --> 00:09:27.920
which I always use in class, is that if people are enjoying,

94
00:09:27.920 --> 00:09:30.320
for example, men are enjoying in particular,

95
00:09:30.320 --> 00:09:32.720
the sight of girls wearing miniskirts,

96
00:09:32.720 --> 00:09:33.800
and of course this is on the way out,

97
00:09:33.800 --> 00:09:37.800
This is up till now, they've been enjoying the sight of girls wearing miniskirts.

98
00:09:37.800 --> 00:09:40.800
And they've been enjoying it without paying for it.

99
00:09:40.800 --> 00:09:44.800
In other words, here we have this aesthetic benefit, or psychic benefit,

100
00:09:44.800 --> 00:09:46.800
which we're not being forced to pay for.

101
00:09:46.800 --> 00:09:50.800
And so therefore, the Freemanite argument should be that we should all be taxed

102
00:09:50.800 --> 00:09:52.800
to pay girls to wear miniskirts.

103
00:09:52.800 --> 00:09:57.800
And this would iron out the external benefits and smooth out the neighborhood effects.

104
00:09:57.800 --> 00:10:00.800
And similarly, this goes for almost anything else.

105
00:10:00.800 --> 00:10:06.800
If one of us, for example, becomes a wiser person by reading a great book or reading Socrates or whatever,

106
00:10:06.800 --> 00:10:12.800
then he becomes wiser. By this wisdom, he benefits other people along the way, and therefore they should be taxed to subsidize him reading Socrates.

107
00:10:12.800 --> 00:10:15.800
And so forth and so on. It's almost infinite.

108
00:10:15.800 --> 00:10:22.800
And this whole approach seems to me to be very peculiar.

109
00:10:22.800 --> 00:10:27.800
In the first place, it really means we should all wear sackcloth and ashes because we're all free riders.

110
00:10:27.800 --> 00:10:38.800
This is really an attack on the free rider but we're all free riders on the discoveries of the past, the writings of the past, the technical inventions, the capital investment of everybody who's gone before us.

111
00:10:38.800 --> 00:10:42.800
We're all getting the benefits of this without paying for it, in a sense.

112
00:10:42.800 --> 00:10:54.800
And does that mean we should beat our breasts and tear our hair and be taxed by somebody in order to somehow pay for this, to suffer for these benefits that we're enjoying?

113
00:10:54.800 --> 00:10:55.800
It's a very peculiar kind of theory.

114
00:10:55.800 --> 00:11:03.800
So what I'm really saying is that free writing, which Friedman is trying to attack here with the neighborhood effects, is really an essential part of civilization altogether.

115
00:11:03.800 --> 00:11:09.800
If we want to abandon free writing, we really have to abandon the fruits of civilization.

116
00:11:09.800 --> 00:11:16.800
Now, when I've talked to Chicagoites and Friedmanites about the mini-skirt analogy, by the way, they admit that this is correct, but they say they wouldn't push their theory that far.

117
00:11:16.800 --> 00:11:17.800
Well, you know, why not?

118
00:11:17.800 --> 00:11:24.200
This is, of course, again, we talk about the rule of logic in political policy.

119
00:11:24.200 --> 00:11:27.400
Of course, those of us in favor of logic, I think, have a point there.

120
00:11:27.400 --> 00:11:36.400
There's another part of the theory that if you're sort of the other side of the coin of the free rider,

121
00:11:36.400 --> 00:11:40.400
is that if you can do something which will benefit other people and you're not doing it,

122
00:11:40.400 --> 00:11:42.400
they should be able to force you to do it.

123
00:11:42.400 --> 00:11:46.600
If you're not conserving copper or something of that sort,

124
00:11:46.600 --> 00:11:50.440
This conversation will help people. They should be able to be forced to do it.

125
00:11:50.440 --> 00:11:56.240
My favorite analogy there is the case of three or four guys, three guys who are playing a string quartet.

126
00:11:56.240 --> 00:12:00.640
There's a fourth guy who could play the cello but is sort of recalculated and doesn't want to do it.

127
00:12:00.640 --> 00:12:06.160
And the theory then should say they should be able to force him to play the cello because that will benefit all three of them.

128
00:12:06.160 --> 00:12:08.320
And this, again, is part of the neighborhood.

129
00:12:08.320 --> 00:12:11.000
I'm not saying Friedman says this, but I'm saying that he should be saying this,

130
00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:16.360
but you're a consistent neighborhood effect theorist.

131
00:12:16.360 --> 00:12:26.360
So there's so much, I think, for neighborhood effects, but I'm saying this is Friedman's major argument for government intervention in almost any area that he thinks the argument applies, such as education.

132
00:12:28.360 --> 00:12:40.360
Okay, now to get to a point, which I think is the most, is probably, this is of course the value of judgment, I think it's probably the single most disastrous economic idea ever invented,

133
00:12:40.360 --> 00:12:44.360
which is the idea of the negative income tax or the guaranteed annual income.

134
00:12:44.360 --> 00:12:48.360
Of course, here again is an interesting situation.

135
00:12:48.360 --> 00:12:55.360
Friedman coined the idea of a negative income tax, in other words, a guaranteed minimum income floor for everybody.

136
00:12:55.360 --> 00:13:04.360
This became the inspiration for more radical schemes such as Robert Theobald and the ad hoc committee of the Triple Revolution and so forth and so on.

137
00:13:04.360 --> 00:13:07.360
And also, of course, for Nixon's current welfare program.

138
00:13:07.360 --> 00:13:14.960
The problem with a negative income tax is that it provides an income floor by right.

139
00:13:14.960 --> 00:13:19.960
In other words, as a rightful claim, as an automatic claim upon production.

140
00:13:19.960 --> 00:13:24.560
It no longer becomes the sort of thing we have to go to the welfare department and sort of hat in hand

141
00:13:24.560 --> 00:13:28.960
and fill out forms and say you really deserve it and they don't think you do and you have to argue about it,

142
00:13:28.960 --> 00:13:30.760
which is sort of a degrading thing.

143
00:13:30.760 --> 00:13:32.160
Now it becomes automatic.

144
00:13:32.160 --> 00:13:36.360
You fill out your income tax form, you say you've gotten less than the prescribed floor

145
00:13:36.360 --> 00:14:06.360
Now this, what I'm saying here is that the present welfare system, as crummy as it is, as bad as it is, as inept and as inefficient and bureaucratic as it is, is precisely saved from disaster by the very ineptness, that's very bureaucracy and very inefficiency, because it means that the whole system of going on welfare in the first place is chaotic, so it's not automatic. Second place, it's unpleasant. You have to go through all these bureaucrats, these tin horn bureaucrats to justify being on welfare in the first place.

146
00:14:06.360 --> 00:14:13.560
And this very unpleasantness provides an extremely necessary disincentive effect to prevent people from going on welfare.

147
00:14:13.560 --> 00:14:18.420
This is the incidentally the original and the old 19th century laissez-faire liberal position.

148
00:14:18.420 --> 00:14:26.500
If you have to have welfare at all, it should be very, very unpleasant, so it's to discourage people from going on it.

149
00:14:26.500 --> 00:14:32.500
And the Freeman theory, in the name of efficiency and simplicity and automatic and automaticity and so forth,

150
00:14:32.500 --> 00:14:36.500
eliminates this very essential unpleasant feature, makes the thing as I say automatic.

151
00:14:38.500 --> 00:14:42.500
What we have to realize is that there is a supply function or supply curve for going on welfare.

152
00:14:43.500 --> 00:14:47.500
And the various empirical studies have shown the quantitative importance of this.

153
00:14:48.500 --> 00:14:51.500
Supply function is essentially this, it's inversely proportional,

154
00:14:52.500 --> 00:14:56.500
one to the difference between the prevailing wage rate in the area and the welfare level.

155
00:14:56.500 --> 00:14:59.500
In other words, if the prevailing wage rate remains the,

156
00:14:59.500 --> 00:15:11.500
If the welfare level remains the same and the prevailing wage rate in the area rises, people start leaving welfare and going on to start working because the difference between the money they can get from working and the money they get from welfare increases.

157
00:15:11.500 --> 00:15:28.500
This gap goes up. So they go off welfare and onto the payroll. If on the other hand the welfare level goes up and the prevailing wage remains the same, then they start going on welfare because the amount of money they can get from working, which is generally a pain in the neck, decreases.

158
00:15:28.500 --> 00:15:31.500
So the incentive to go on welfare increases.

159
00:15:31.500 --> 00:15:35.500
This means that being on welfare is not somehow a divine act.

160
00:15:35.500 --> 00:15:38.500
In other words, it doesn't come from outside the system.

161
00:15:38.500 --> 00:15:40.500
Being on welfare is a supply function,

162
00:15:40.500 --> 00:15:42.500
and it responds to different incentives and disincentives.

163
00:15:42.500 --> 00:15:45.500
And one of the incentives is the prevailing wage rate

164
00:15:45.500 --> 00:15:49.500
as compared to the welfare rate, welfare payment rate.

165
00:15:49.500 --> 00:15:52.500
And it's also the supply function of going on welfare

166
00:15:52.500 --> 00:15:56.500
is inversely proportional to the cultural disincentive, as we put it.

167
00:15:56.500 --> 00:16:04.500
In other words, the stronger the cultural aversion, cultural resistance to being on welfare, the less the people will tend to be on it.

168
00:16:04.500 --> 00:16:15.500
This accounts, for example, for the reason why the rural poor, there are much less rural poor going on welfare than urban poor, even though rural poor are just as poor, if not even more so.

169
00:16:15.500 --> 00:16:24.500
But in the rural areas there's a stigma, a general social stigma in the neighborhood for going on welfare, it's generally imposed, and bitterly so, especially the people who are paying for it,

170
00:16:54.500 --> 00:17:08.500
The Albanians in New York are invariably very poor, they're all slum dwellers, and none of them are on welfare for a simple reason, as one Albanian leader put it, Albanian-American leader put it,

171
00:17:08.500 --> 00:17:13.500
Albanians do not beg, and to Albanians, taking welfare is like begging on the street, period.

172
00:17:13.500 --> 00:17:22.500
So since to the Albanian, being on welfare is like begging on the street, they just are not on welfare, even though their income level is much lower than the average population.

173
00:17:22.500 --> 00:17:27.500
The same goes for the Chinese Americans who are generally poor but almost none on welfare.

174
00:17:27.500 --> 00:17:31.500
But I'll get back to the whole welfare question a little bit later.

175
00:17:31.500 --> 00:17:37.500
At any rate, the negative income tax, by making it a dole automatic,

176
00:17:37.500 --> 00:17:45.500
my contend, opens the floodgates to an enormous increase, an enormous accession of people living on production.

177
00:17:45.500 --> 00:17:51.500
And here I recommend Henry Hazlitt's critique of the negative income tax in the Freeman about, I think, four years ago,

178
00:17:51.500 --> 00:18:21.500
In the first place, what obviously is going to happen, if the negative income tax is put in, is that the floor, which Friedman sets at essentially $1,500 a year, because it's 3,000 with 50% off, so it amounts to $1,500 a year, this floor obviously will start increasing to beat the ban at a very rapid rate, because the first thing people will say is, well, $3,000 is officially considered by the government as the poverty level for a family of four, and therefore you can't subsidize some of that money.

179
00:18:21.500 --> 00:18:30.500
The Welfare Client Organizations are already demanding their so-called right to a guaranteed $6,000 a year income.

180
00:18:30.500 --> 00:18:38.500
So the hopped-up pressure to keep raising the floor almost indefinitely is already under way.

181
00:18:38.500 --> 00:18:45.500
These nine organizations are already demanding their so-called right to a guaranteed $6,000 a year income.

182
00:18:45.500 --> 00:18:52.500
So the hopped-up pressure to keep raising the floor, almost indefinitely, is already underway.

183
00:18:52.500 --> 00:18:54.500
It's even before the thing has begun.

184
00:18:54.500 --> 00:19:00.500
So it's pretty obvious that this floor, starting at a fairly reasonable-looking $1,500, is going to skyrocket very quickly.

185
00:19:00.500 --> 00:19:02.500
But there's another point. That's a fairly obvious point.

186
00:19:02.500 --> 00:19:07.500
The other point is who will continue working, which person who gets below the floor, for example, will keep working.

187
00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:16.500
In other words, if the floor is $3,000 a year, there will be very, very few people who will keep working at $2,500 a year.

188
00:19:16.500 --> 00:19:23.500
They can just simply quit, work zero hours a week, sit on the porch and get $3,000 from the government instead of getting $500 from the government.

189
00:19:23.500 --> 00:19:32.500
So, what I contend is that, well, what happens is the current, you see, if you see the current estimates about the cost of a guaranteed annual income, the cost will look fairly reasonable.

190
00:19:32.500 --> 00:19:36.900
5 billion a year, 10 billion, 15 billion, doesn't look catastrophic.

191
00:19:36.900 --> 00:19:43.060
However, these costs are all based on the assumption that everybody will continue working the same way they're working now.

192
00:19:43.060 --> 00:19:50.220
The disincentive effect, which seems to me will be catastrophic from this sort of thing, are not taken into account.

193
00:19:50.220 --> 00:19:56.660
So the fact that you have the guys, if the floor is 3,000, I can tell everybody below 3,000 will quit pretty quickly.

194
00:19:56.660 --> 00:20:01.100
If they don't quit, they're pretty screwy. They'll quit.

195
00:20:01.100 --> 00:20:03.940
The person getting $3,000 will quit, or how about the people getting above $3,000?

196
00:20:03.940 --> 00:20:08.500
Well, they're going to quit, too, because if you're getting, say, $3,500 a year,

197
00:20:08.500 --> 00:20:12.300
it means you're working 40 hours a week in order to get $500 a year.

198
00:20:12.300 --> 00:20:13.620
That's not very much.

199
00:20:13.620 --> 00:20:17.620
So I think people will quit en masse up to at least $4,000, maybe $5,000 a year,

200
00:20:17.620 --> 00:20:18.940
something like that.

201
00:20:18.940 --> 00:20:22.740
Now, as they quit, this means they have an enormous number of people flooding onto the dole.

202
00:20:22.740 --> 00:20:26.700
Somebody's got to pay for this, and of course, the person who pays for it is the taxpayer.

203
00:20:26.700 --> 00:20:30.220
This means taxes have to be increased very sharply on the guys who are still working.

204
00:20:30.220 --> 00:20:33.220
The guy's getting above $5,000 a year.

205
00:20:33.220 --> 00:20:40.220
And as the taxes are increased on them, their after-tax income goes down maybe to $4,000 or $3,000, so they start quitting.

206
00:20:40.220 --> 00:20:48.220
And as they start quitting, this floods the role some more, and they have to increase the taxes on those continuing to work.

207
00:20:48.220 --> 00:20:51.220
Maybe those above $6,000, they start quitting.

208
00:20:51.220 --> 00:20:59.220
What I'm saying is, I envision with a guaranteed annual income, a vicious spiral upward or downward, or whatever, until we wind up with everybody on the dole and nobody working.

209
00:20:59.220 --> 00:21:04.580
which even the Keynesians can't really cope with, that kind of assistance.

210
00:21:04.580 --> 00:21:08.820
I just foresee total disaster with this thing coming into effect.

211
00:21:08.820 --> 00:21:17.980
Also, just as an extra tidbit on this, is that the Friedman Dole, in addition to the present one,

212
00:21:17.980 --> 00:21:24.220
but the Friedman Dole is automatic, increases the subsidy per kid, per welfare kid,

213
00:21:24.220 --> 00:21:31.220
In other words, a family of eight people, six kids, or seven kids, or whatever, gets a lot more proportionally in a person with two kids.

214
00:21:31.220 --> 00:21:35.220
If you're paying people per kid, it means it subsidizes the kid population.

215
00:21:35.220 --> 00:21:42.220
In other words, it especially subsidizes the kid population among the poor, the very people who should have less kids, if not more.

216
00:21:42.220 --> 00:21:47.220
I don't buy the whole thing about the whole current hysteria about the population bomb and the population explosion,

217
00:21:47.220 --> 00:21:51.220
everybody should all commit suicide in order to stop air pollution and all that sort of thing.

218
00:21:51.220 --> 00:21:57.020
along with that, but surely we shouldn't be deliberately subsidizing more kids among poor people.

219
00:21:57.020 --> 00:22:06.620
It seems to me a very peculiar kind of system, but here again, the Friedman's negative income tax would do this as an automatic right of free gap.

220
00:22:06.620 --> 00:22:11.420
In other words, you couldn't talk to a person saying maybe you should have a few less kids or something like that to be considered, you know,

221
00:22:11.420 --> 00:22:18.220
and it would be, in fact, an intrusion of their privacy.

222
00:22:18.220 --> 00:22:25.100
So therefore, what I'm saying is that it's not true that the Friedman Plan, as many conservatives say, would be better, at least, in the current system, although not ideal.

223
00:22:25.100 --> 00:22:33.500
What I'm saying is it would be much, much worse in the current system, precisely because it would be efficient, in quotes, and automatic, and a guaranteed sort of thing.

224
00:22:33.500 --> 00:22:41.660
And this, incidentally, is an example, it seems to me, of Friedman's general penchant for making the existing system more efficient, and by doing it, making it much worse.

225
00:22:41.660 --> 00:22:45.660
This is, I think, just one example of this.

226
00:22:45.660 --> 00:22:49.980
Also, of course, another point is that in practice,

227
00:22:49.980 --> 00:22:51.340
if a man wants a negative income tax,

228
00:22:51.340 --> 00:22:53.260
replace all current welfare system.

229
00:22:53.260 --> 00:22:56.020
You abolish the entire patchwork of welfare programs,

230
00:22:56.020 --> 00:22:58.340
you substitute the negative income tax.

231
00:22:58.340 --> 00:22:59.580
In practice, what's going to happen,

232
00:22:59.580 --> 00:23:01.420
as we see is already happening with the Nixon program,

233
00:23:01.420 --> 00:23:03.220
is that the guaranteed annual income

234
00:23:03.220 --> 00:23:05.820
will be added on top of the current welfare stuff.

235
00:23:05.820 --> 00:23:07.340
It won't replace anything.

236
00:23:07.340 --> 00:23:09.340
Nobody's gonna get rid of free lunches

237
00:23:09.340 --> 00:23:12.660
for blind mothers and that sort of thing, nobody.

238
00:23:12.660 --> 00:23:14.980
All that's gonna stay, and on top of that,

239
00:23:14.980 --> 00:23:18.980
The Social Security Proposal

240
00:23:44.980 --> 00:23:49.480
and abolish old age relief, saying the thing will really be less costly to the taxpayer than before.

241
00:23:49.480 --> 00:23:52.480
That was the big economic talking point.

242
00:23:52.480 --> 00:23:57.980
Of course, what happened in practice was that not only the social security costs continued to rise astronomically,

243
00:23:57.980 --> 00:24:01.480
but old age relief itself is much higher now than it was in the 1930s.

244
00:24:01.480 --> 00:24:03.980
In other words, nobody abolished state old age relief.

245
00:24:03.980 --> 00:24:08.480
We simply added the social security up top of the old programs.

246
00:24:08.480 --> 00:24:12.980
This is obviously what's going to happen with a negative income tax.

247
00:24:12.980 --> 00:24:18.480
And also, of course, I think it's pretty clear that the so-called requirement of the Nixon program,

248
00:24:18.480 --> 00:24:26.480
this is just nothing to do with Friedman at this point, but simply Friedman in action is what the Nixon program really is.

249
00:24:26.480 --> 00:24:31.480
The conservative requirement, in quotes, that all able-bodied recipients of the thing have to go to work, have to get a job,

250
00:24:31.480 --> 00:24:36.480
is obviously a phony. Nobody's going to enforce it. It's going to be just as enforceable as the current.

251
00:24:36.480 --> 00:24:40.480
I mean, nowadays, in order to get unemployment insurance relief, unemployment benefits,

252
00:24:40.480 --> 00:24:45.080
He's supposed to have to work at whatever the employment service sends you to.

253
00:24:45.080 --> 00:24:46.160
Of course, it's obviously a phony.

254
00:24:46.160 --> 00:24:49.720
I don't know of any case of anybody really forced to work on this basis,

255
00:24:49.720 --> 00:24:54.160
because the requirement, of course, is you have to work at a suitable job,

256
00:24:54.160 --> 00:24:55.840
a job that you consider suitable, of course.

257
00:24:55.840 --> 00:24:57.480
You don't consider any job suitable.

258
00:24:57.480 --> 00:24:59.200
That's that.

259
00:24:59.200 --> 00:25:01.400
It's fairly simple.

260
00:25:01.400 --> 00:25:04.000
So this whole thing is obviously just to sop the conservatives,

261
00:25:04.000 --> 00:25:09.840
the whole work requirement to sugarcoat the Guarantee Annual Income Program.

262
00:25:10.480 --> 00:25:14.480
And also, there's another point about the handicapped people on welfare,

263
00:25:14.480 --> 00:25:17.480
and that is that this reduces the...

264
00:25:17.480 --> 00:25:21.480
And some Chicago people have done some good work in, I must say.

265
00:25:21.480 --> 00:25:27.480
The idea of an automatic welfare dole reduces the marginal incentive

266
00:25:27.480 --> 00:25:30.480
for a handicapped person to invest in his own vocational rehabilitation,

267
00:25:30.480 --> 00:25:34.480
because it means that the net economic return he gets from being rehabilitated is much less.

268
00:25:34.480 --> 00:25:39.480
He might even disappear altogether if you put him on a guaranteed income.

269
00:25:40.480 --> 00:25:47.980
As a result of that, and Estelle James has done some pretty good work on that, the quantitative importance of this policy.

270
00:25:47.980 --> 00:25:52.980
As a result of that, the welfare program and the negative income tax program tends to keep people handicapped.

271
00:25:52.980 --> 00:25:59.480
In other words, it tends to subsidize them to continue to be handicapped instead of being rehabilitated.

272
00:25:59.480 --> 00:26:04.980
And as a matter of fact, in general, the whole problem of welfare dependency will be aggravated by the Friedman Plan,

273
00:26:04.980 --> 00:26:20.980
The proper solution seems to me to the whole welfare question is the libertarian solution, which is voluntary welfare rather than governmental welfare altogether.

274
00:26:20.980 --> 00:26:33.980
The key here is to promote the idea, which of course almost inevitably has to accompany voluntary charity because since voluntary charity has a limited budget, they have to start pushing the idea of encouraging self-help.

275
00:26:33.980 --> 00:26:42.980
self-help. In other words, among the recipients. In other words, helping people, the idea of helping them becomes helping people to help themselves, get them on their feet so they can become productive and off the charity roll.

276
00:26:42.980 --> 00:26:52.980
This principle was the principle of a famous charity organization society in 19th century England, which was extremely effective. It was the famous laissez-faire principle at the time.

277
00:26:52.980 --> 00:27:07.980
And again, the points I may raise about the Albanians and the Chinese are going to come in here because the point is that if people begin to adopt the values of self-help and independence, they will get off the welfare rolls also.

278
00:27:07.980 --> 00:27:14.980
This is a tremendous reinforcement of this. And we reinforce these particular values by abandoning government programs and encouraging voluntary programs.

279
00:27:14.980 --> 00:27:29.980
The Mormon Church is a very successful voluntary welfare program, which gives people for their members, which gives members help in order to get them on their feet, and apparently they're very successful at doing this.

280
00:27:29.980 --> 00:27:50.980
The whole idea of it and the reason why Friedman falls for it in essence is because it stems from the old Chicago position of first of all being in favor of compulsory egalitarianism or equalization of incomes.

281
00:27:50.980 --> 00:27:58.980
This is again the Simons position, more or less in favor of taxing everybody above a certain level and paying everybody below that level.

282
00:27:58.980 --> 00:28:06.980
Now, Friedman doesn't go that far, but the point is that there still is hangover, a remnant of that tradition, in separating the micro and the macro.

283
00:28:06.980 --> 00:28:11.980
In other words, the idea is you have the micro out here. This is Alfred Marshall in 19th century England and so forth position.

284
00:28:11.980 --> 00:28:18.980
The general Anglo-American tradition. You got the micro over here where individual prices are determined by individual supply and demand.

285
00:28:18.980 --> 00:28:25.980
That's one sphere. Then you have the macro sphere over here where total prices, price level, is determined by the money supply.

286
00:28:25.980 --> 00:28:32.980
So these two things never really meet. You have the macro out there, you have the micro out there, and that's it. There's no integration.

287
00:28:32.980 --> 00:28:38.980
And so the real hidden assumption here of the Friedman position is that you can tax people really as much as you want.

288
00:28:38.980 --> 00:28:42.980
It doesn't interfere with their incentives because their incentives are determined by marginal productivity.

289
00:28:42.980 --> 00:28:48.980
It's a different sphere out there. And I'm going to get back to this whole separation thing later when I get to money.

290
00:28:48.980 --> 00:28:51.980
Okay, that's the negative income tax.

291
00:28:51.980 --> 00:28:58.980
Now we come to a crucial area, I think, where I differ with Friedman,

292
00:28:58.980 --> 00:29:00.980
the whole area of money and business cycles,

293
00:29:00.980 --> 00:29:02.980
which incidentally is Friedman's major topic of interest.

294
00:29:02.980 --> 00:29:04.980
It's the area where he's worst on.

295
00:29:04.980 --> 00:29:06.980
It's also his major topic of interest.

296
00:29:06.980 --> 00:29:09.980
This incidentally seems to be a sort of a...

297
00:29:09.980 --> 00:29:12.980
It happens often in the history of social thought and economic thought and everything else.

298
00:29:12.980 --> 00:29:15.980
The area where the particular person happens to be worst on,

299
00:29:15.980 --> 00:29:17.980
he sort of pushes for his whole life.

300
00:29:17.980 --> 00:29:21.420
for his whole life, and this is a sort of unfortunate development.

301
00:29:21.420 --> 00:29:26.340
At any rate, here again, Freeman is essentially almost completely a reversion of Irving Fisher,

302
00:29:26.340 --> 00:29:30.300
who wrote, incidentally, from around 1890s to 1920s.

303
00:29:32.300 --> 00:29:34.900
Freeman's whole monetary approach, I mean Fisher, excuse me,

304
00:29:34.900 --> 00:29:37.460
Fisher's whole monetary approach and his whole business cycle approach,

305
00:29:37.460 --> 00:29:39.820
which are very, very closely linked,

306
00:29:39.820 --> 00:29:43.820
was based again on this Marshallian Anglo-American dichotomy between the micro and the macro.

307
00:29:43.820 --> 00:29:45.780
The micro is out here and the micro is out there.

308
00:29:45.780 --> 00:29:48.300
Here you have individual prices, which are determined by supply and demand.

309
00:29:48.300 --> 00:29:51.540
You let those be determined by the free market.

310
00:29:51.540 --> 00:29:53.180
It's a heroic concession of the free market.

311
00:29:53.180 --> 00:29:56.580
You let that individual prices be determined by the free market.

312
00:29:56.580 --> 00:29:58.780
And then over there is the macro level.

313
00:29:58.780 --> 00:30:02.220
The macro level, you have this price level, the macro sphere.

314
00:30:02.220 --> 00:30:06.500
You have the price level, which is determined by the money supply and velocity.

315
00:30:06.500 --> 00:30:08.700
And there, this is a different situation.

316
00:30:08.700 --> 00:30:11.140
Here you have, this is a situation ripe for government intervention

317
00:30:11.140 --> 00:30:13.620
running to the Fisher-Freedman position.

318
00:30:13.620 --> 00:30:23.620
So, the idea is you have a free market in the micro level and you have the government up to its hilt, up to its neck in the macro level, and you think that the two of them will never meet.

319
00:30:23.620 --> 00:30:36.620
Now, this whole approach, this separation, this artificial separation of the micro and the macro is, of course, an exquisite contrast to Professor Mises's great achievement in The Theory of Money and Credit, which he began in The Theory of Money and Credit,

320
00:30:36.620 --> 00:30:40.620
which is an achievement which has still not been incorporated into Anglo-American economics

321
00:30:40.620 --> 00:30:45.620
in almost any sense of integrating the monetary and the real spheres.

322
00:30:45.620 --> 00:30:50.620
In other words, the monetary sphere and the microsphere, integrating them into one system.

323
00:30:50.620 --> 00:30:56.620
So, for example, Fisher wrote a famous article in the 1920s which is recently favorably cited by Friedman

324
00:30:56.620 --> 00:30:59.620
called The Business Cycle is the Dance of the Dollar. It's a very interesting article.

325
00:30:59.620 --> 00:31:04.620
Again, I recommend you reading it because it will give you a clue to the whole Friedmanite position.

326
00:31:04.620 --> 00:31:09.620
which set the model for the whole Chicago business cycle analysis.

327
00:31:09.620 --> 00:31:18.620
In Harbrower's book, for example, he says that the founder of the purely monetary theory of the business cycle is Ralph Hortry,

328
00:31:18.620 --> 00:31:24.620
the English economist, which is true, but Irving Fisher is just as influential, probably more so, in the United States.

329
00:31:24.620 --> 00:31:29.620
In this theory, the business cycle then becomes a dance, almost literally.

330
00:31:29.620 --> 00:31:38.020
becomes a kind of a random, uncoordinated, uncaused kind of fluctuation of the price level.

331
00:31:38.020 --> 00:31:41.220
And so the key to the whole thing is that the price level is somehow moving around.

332
00:31:41.220 --> 00:31:47.720
This is a defect of the free market because the free market allows the price level to keep changing in this kind of peculiar, fancy type manner.

333
00:31:47.720 --> 00:31:53.820
And the cure then for the business cycle is for the government to step in to take measures to stabilize the price level.

334
00:31:53.820 --> 00:31:58.420
In other words, iron out the fluctuation of the price level to keep the price level constant

335
00:31:58.420 --> 00:32:01.060
and thereby, of course, curing the business cycle,

336
00:32:01.060 --> 00:32:05.820
because the business cycle is supposed to be a pure creature of these changes in the price level.

337
00:32:09.820 --> 00:32:14.300
And this really remains today, despite modifications, which I'll mention a little later,

338
00:32:14.300 --> 00:32:15.940
this remains Friedman's position as well.

339
00:32:15.940 --> 00:32:20.220
Friedman is looking for some gimmick, some method of stabilizing the price level.

340
00:32:22.140 --> 00:32:25.940
This ideal of stabilizing the price level, which of keeping the price level constant,

341
00:32:25.940 --> 00:32:28.580
is again linked to Fisher's peculiar view of money,

342
00:32:28.580 --> 00:32:30.500
the view of the dollar and the franc and the pound

343
00:32:30.500 --> 00:32:33.260
and the whole monetary philosophy.

344
00:32:33.260 --> 00:32:37.620
According to Fisher, the true role of money is to measure values.

345
00:32:37.620 --> 00:32:40.940
The idea is the money is supposed to be a measuring stick of some sort

346
00:32:40.940 --> 00:32:43.860
and the price level is supposed to be the thing being measured.

347
00:32:43.860 --> 00:32:46.540
So therefore, the price level has to be constant, according to Fisher,

348
00:32:46.540 --> 00:32:49.140
in order to fulfill money's true function.

349
00:32:49.140 --> 00:32:51.460
Now, we know, I don't want to get into the idea

350
00:32:51.460 --> 00:32:53.260
of why you can't measure values and all the rest of it.

351
00:32:53.260 --> 00:32:54.780
I just want to point that out.

352
00:32:54.780 --> 00:32:59.020
They're very different from the Austrian and 19th century position.

353
00:32:59.020 --> 00:33:04.420
Now, this goal, this idea, somehow this moral ideal of a stable price level

354
00:33:04.420 --> 00:33:08.980
is in total contrast to the 19th century approach and the Austrian approach

355
00:33:08.980 --> 00:33:13.500
of saying, well, of hailing, essentially lauding the results of the unhampered free market,

356
00:33:13.500 --> 00:33:17.340
which usually, almost invariably leads to a falling price level,

357
00:33:17.340 --> 00:33:20.460
because usually what happens on the free market is that productivity increases,

358
00:33:20.460 --> 00:33:22.860
the supply of goods increases, and the price level falls.

359
00:33:22.860 --> 00:33:29.140
It's just like TV sets have fallen in price from $2,000 to $60 or whatever over the years.

360
00:33:29.140 --> 00:33:32.580
This usually happens for all goods or most goods and services.

361
00:33:32.580 --> 00:33:41.460
So Fisher is really standing there in opposition to the system of unhappened free market in the macro sense.

362
00:33:41.460 --> 00:33:43.100
In other words, the idea of permitting a falling price level.

363
00:33:43.100 --> 00:33:45.740
No, no, it's a terrible thing. It's immoral. It doesn't measure.

364
00:33:45.740 --> 00:33:48.300
You have to have a stable price level.

365
00:33:48.300 --> 00:33:55.580
Okay, now this, it was Irving Fisher, and Irving Fisher was extremely influential, by the way, politically and economically.

366
00:33:55.580 --> 00:34:00.860
It was his theories and his influence which really provided the main ideological support for the record,

367
00:34:00.860 --> 00:34:08.020
the grisly record that Percy Graves mentioned last meeting about the inflation of the Federal Reserve System during the 1920s.

368
00:34:08.020 --> 00:34:14.980
Benjamin Strong, who was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York and the main leader of the Federal Reserve System in the 20s,

369
00:34:14.980 --> 00:34:18.420
was guided by Fisher and Hortry and his whole economic theory.

370
00:34:18.420 --> 00:34:22.020
He's a member of Fisher's nefarious Stable Money Association,

371
00:34:22.020 --> 00:34:24.620
which was pushing the idea of a stable price level.

372
00:34:24.620 --> 00:34:28.540
And so the idea was they looked at the price levels,

373
00:34:28.540 --> 00:34:30.820
and the price level was represented by wholesale prices,

374
00:34:30.820 --> 00:34:32.940
and wholesale prices were either constant during the 20s

375
00:34:32.940 --> 00:34:34.540
or they were falling a little bit

376
00:34:34.540 --> 00:34:37.180
because of the increased productivity of the economy.

377
00:34:37.180 --> 00:34:39.020
And so they said, there isn't any inflation.

378
00:34:39.020 --> 00:34:40.700
Why are all these people worrying about inflation?

379
00:34:40.700 --> 00:34:41.540
There's no such thing,

380
00:34:41.540 --> 00:34:43.820
because if you're looking at the price level, it's falling, that's it.

381
00:34:43.820 --> 00:34:45.820
As a matter of fact, they were advocating more inflation.

382
00:34:45.820 --> 00:34:48.820
They wanted, they said, it's a terrible thing, price level is sagging a little bit,

383
00:34:48.820 --> 00:34:51.820
therefore we have to pump more money into the system to raise it.

384
00:34:51.820 --> 00:34:55.820
This was the Fisherite orthodox, this is the position of orthodox economics,

385
00:34:55.820 --> 00:34:59.820
we want to put it that way, establishment economics, all during the 1920s.

386
00:34:59.820 --> 00:35:03.820
So when people like Professor Mises and a couple of other people warned

387
00:35:03.820 --> 00:35:07.820
about the dangers ahead of a recession and economic crisis

388
00:35:07.820 --> 00:35:10.820
due to the inflation of bank credit, they said, no, it's not inflation,

389
00:35:10.820 --> 00:35:12.820
we're looking at the price level and the price level is falling.

390
00:35:12.820 --> 00:35:19.820
That's it. Even in 1930 Irving Fisher refused to recognize that any depression really existed.

391
00:35:19.820 --> 00:35:24.820
He said, no, no, this is all temporary jolt in the stock market. Things will bounce up again any minute.

392
00:35:24.820 --> 00:35:35.820
And now in his well-known book, Monetary History of the United States, which Friedman wrote a few years ago with Anna Schwartz,

393
00:35:35.820 --> 00:35:40.820
he imposes his whole Fisherine theory, his whole Fisherine views upon the American past.

394
00:35:40.820 --> 00:35:50.820
If you look at Friedman's position on the 20s, he thinks Benjamin Strong was one of the greatest people who ever lived, a great price stabilizer, tremendous.

395
00:35:50.820 --> 00:35:55.820
And things began to go wrong only after Strong died and his policies were no longer put into effect.

396
00:35:55.820 --> 00:36:02.820
And so, Friedman attributes the 1929 depression not to excess inflation which brings about recession, etc. Quite the contrary.

397
00:36:02.820 --> 00:36:05.180
He attributes it to insufficient inflation.

398
00:36:05.180 --> 00:36:06.500
He attributes it to the Federal Reserve system

399
00:36:06.500 --> 00:36:09.420
not inflating enough in the late 1928-29

400
00:36:09.420 --> 00:36:13.380
and not inflating enough, surely, after 1930, after 1929.

401
00:36:13.380 --> 00:36:15.540
In other words, during the recession,

402
00:36:15.540 --> 00:36:16.780
they should have inflated much more.

403
00:36:16.780 --> 00:36:18.180
They only inflated a little bit

404
00:36:18.180 --> 00:36:20.060
and they should have inflated a tremendous amount

405
00:36:20.060 --> 00:36:22.660
and that would have solved the whole problem.

406
00:36:22.660 --> 00:36:27.660
So, while it is true that we monetary malinvestment people

407
00:36:28.900 --> 00:36:30.780
have to hail the fact that Friedman has brought money

408
00:36:30.780 --> 00:36:35.480
After the discussion, once at last, after 30 years of being ignored by the Keynesians,

409
00:36:35.480 --> 00:36:40.480
we talk only in terms of expenditure, government expenditure and so forth,

410
00:36:40.480 --> 00:36:44.480
after hailing this and after saying, yeah, it's a great thing that money is now back in style,

411
00:36:44.480 --> 00:36:50.480
so to speak, or back in fashion, we don't have to record the fact that freedom has the exact opposite of the correct theory on money.

412
00:36:50.480 --> 00:36:55.080
It's true, he talks about money a lot, but the theory is the reverse of the correct one,

413
00:36:55.080 --> 00:37:00.680
because, as I say, he holds that the stabilization of the price level is the goal of macro policy,

414
00:37:00.680 --> 00:37:05.280
And therefore, strong was right and the successors were wrong for not inflating enough.

415
00:37:05.280 --> 00:37:08.760
During the 1930s, after the Depression hit,

416
00:37:08.760 --> 00:37:13.960
the Fisher View and the Chicago position, Knight and Simons and all these people at the University of Chicago,

417
00:37:13.960 --> 00:37:19.280
took the position that the way to cure the Depression was to reflate, quote, reflate, unquote,

418
00:37:19.280 --> 00:37:22.000
the price level back up to the 1920s levels.

419
00:37:22.000 --> 00:37:25.120
In other words, somehow keeping the price level constant was no longer good enough.

420
00:37:25.120 --> 00:37:30.200
You had to raise the price level back to the 1920s and doing it in two ways.

421
00:37:30.200 --> 00:37:35.200
In other words, during the early 1930s, if you read the literature in the early 1930s,

422
00:37:35.200 --> 00:37:40.200
Fisher and the Chicago people, Knight, Hardy, Simons and so forth, were considered pretty leftish.

423
00:37:40.200 --> 00:37:45.200
They were considered sort of socialistic because they were in favor of big government deficits,

424
00:37:45.200 --> 00:37:50.200
inflationary program, public works and so forth, and indeed they were.

425
00:37:50.200 --> 00:37:55.200
In short, during the early 1930s, they were in favor of big government deficits,

426
00:37:55.200 --> 00:37:57.800
Public Works, and so forth, and indeed they were.

427
00:37:58.920 --> 00:38:01.120
In short, during the early 30s,

428
00:38:01.200 --> 00:38:03.560
Fisher and the Chicago School were pre-Keynesian Keynesians.

429
00:38:03.640 --> 00:38:07.480
They had the entire Keynesian position without the Keynesian theory behind it.

430
00:38:07.560 --> 00:38:12.200
They had another theory behind it, but the political program was virtually the same.

431
00:38:12.280 --> 00:38:16.520
So what happened was, some journal article recently said,

432
00:38:16.600 --> 00:38:20.680
the reason why the Chicago School was immune to the Keynesian Revolution when it finally hit

433
00:38:20.760 --> 00:38:23.280
is that the Chicago people were Keynesians anyway.

434
00:38:23.280 --> 00:38:28.080
It wasn't a big thing to them about expanding, inflating the money supply, expanding deficits and so forth.

435
00:38:28.080 --> 00:38:34.320
So they didn't buy the whole Keynesian theoretical apparatus, as the other people did, because they already were Keynesians politically.

436
00:38:34.320 --> 00:38:38.480
They favored the compensatory, monetary and fiscal policy and so forth and so on.

437
00:38:38.480 --> 00:38:46.640
Although they always stressed money is more important than fiscal, but they had both, really, as both arms of it.

438
00:38:46.640 --> 00:38:56.640
Now we know, of course, about Friedman's famous position of calling for a continuing, steady expansion of the money supply by three to four percent a year.

439
00:38:56.640 --> 00:39:01.640
He changes the percentages every once in a while. It's a little vague about what percentage he really wants.

440
00:39:01.640 --> 00:39:05.640
Somewhere between three to four percent per year to be expanded by the Federal Reserve system.

441
00:39:05.640 --> 00:39:14.640
We know that is his position, but what we don't realize, many of us, is this is simply a continuation of this older Fisher Chicago policy with a modification.

442
00:39:14.640 --> 00:39:17.640
The only clarification was he realized that the older policy didn't work very well in practice.

443
00:39:17.640 --> 00:39:23.640
In other words, Friedman now says, well, compensatory fiscal policy doesn't work too well,

444
00:39:23.640 --> 00:39:28.640
and compensatory monetary policy doesn't work too well because it suffers from these inevitable time lags.

445
00:39:28.640 --> 00:39:32.640
You look at the statistics and you see there's a recession in January, let's say.

446
00:39:32.640 --> 00:39:35.640
So first of all, it takes about three, four months for the statistics to come in.

447
00:39:35.640 --> 00:39:38.640
You don't know what's going on until four months later.

448
00:39:38.640 --> 00:39:41.640
Then it takes about six months to decide on what to do.

449
00:39:41.640 --> 00:39:46.140
And after you decide what to do, it takes about 6-7 months before the effect takes place in the economic system.

450
00:39:46.140 --> 00:39:52.140
So it's about a year, a year and a half between the time you start doing, between the time you see a crisis developed

451
00:39:52.140 --> 00:39:57.140
and the time when the actual policy to counteract the crisis really takes effect.

452
00:39:57.140 --> 00:39:59.140
By that time, you're usually in a different phase of the business cycle.

453
00:39:59.140 --> 00:40:06.140
So if you're trying to pump in money to counteract a recession, you wind up pumping in money to aggravate a boom and vice versa.

454
00:40:07.140 --> 00:40:10.640
The price level in the short run, we can't have a fine tuning of the system.

455
00:40:10.640 --> 00:40:13.540
But what he wants to do then is to stabilize the price level in the long run.

456
00:40:13.540 --> 00:40:19.140
In other words, over the long period, the supply of goods and services goes up something like two to three percent per year.

457
00:40:19.140 --> 00:40:24.040
Therefore, he pump in the money supply, pump in an increase in money supply by two to three percent per year,

458
00:40:24.040 --> 00:40:26.140
and we'll get, in the long run, a stable price level.

459
00:40:26.140 --> 00:40:31.840
This glorious ideal of a stable price level will be fulfilled in the long run.

460
00:40:31.840 --> 00:40:36.840
So, therefore, Friedman is really plainly and simply, to put it very plainly, is simply an inflationist,

461
00:40:36.840 --> 00:41:06.840
Friedman's played a very pernicious role, because what happened was that by June, after the Nixon administration fumbled around for quite a while, by June of 1969, they finally stopped increasing the money supply, Happy Day finally arrived, the first year of the Nixon administration, the second year of the Nixon administration, the third year of the Nixon administration, the fourth year of the Nixon administration, the fifth year of the Nixon administration, the sixth year of the Nixon administration,

462
00:41:06.840 --> 00:41:11.840
The first time, God knows how many years, money supply was no longer being increased.

463
00:41:11.840 --> 00:41:16.400
As soon as that happened, almost to the minute, Friedman and his disciples immediately launched

464
00:41:16.400 --> 00:41:19.560
an hysterical campaign, attacking it, saying, no, no, it's a terrible thing, we'll get a

465
00:41:19.560 --> 00:41:23.680
recession, if you don't increase the money supply immediately, increase it by 3 to 4%

466
00:41:23.680 --> 00:41:27.440
per year, don't keep it constant, and so forth and so on.

467
00:41:27.440 --> 00:41:31.880
Finally, after months of this, around February, I'm afraid, Friedman's campaign bore fruit

468
00:41:31.880 --> 00:41:35.840
and we've begun to loosen up the money supply once more, even though prices are still going

469
00:41:35.840 --> 00:41:42.840
So, what Freeman doesn't understand, and the same thing that Fisher didn't understand 40 years ago, it's still part of the same struggle.

470
00:41:42.840 --> 00:41:48.840
What he doesn't understand is the insight that Professor Mises' so-called Austrian business cycle theory provided.

471
00:41:48.840 --> 00:41:53.840
And the insight was that, the insight which finally integrated the monetary sphere and the real sphere,

472
00:41:53.840 --> 00:42:00.840
and the real sphere, and the real sphere, and the real sphere, and the real sphere, and the real sphere, and the real sphere,

473
00:42:00.840 --> 00:42:06.640
And the insight was that the insight which finally integrated the monetary sphere and the real sphere

474
00:42:06.640 --> 00:42:10.140
and said the following, and very simply.

475
00:42:10.140 --> 00:42:14.440
What he doesn't understand is that when you expand credit, this distorts the structure of production.

476
00:42:14.440 --> 00:42:17.840
In other words, it distorts relative prices, distorts production.

477
00:42:17.840 --> 00:42:22.240
It leads to over-investment in the higher orders of production in the capital goods sphere

478
00:42:22.240 --> 00:42:24.540
and under-investment of consumer goods.

479
00:42:24.540 --> 00:42:30.740
Therefore, the Freeman people, along with the whole Anglo-American tradition,

480
00:42:30.740 --> 00:42:33.980
think that inflation doesn't cause any maladjustments of that type.

481
00:42:33.980 --> 00:42:37.420
It simply raises prices, period. It simply raises the price level.

482
00:42:38.300 --> 00:42:43.220
However, since we know, as Austrians, we know that it distorts the price level,

483
00:42:43.220 --> 00:42:47.260
at least the wasteful malinvestments and overinvestment in the capital goods sphere,

484
00:42:47.260 --> 00:42:50.340
this means that according to what Mises and Hayek have shown,

485
00:42:50.340 --> 00:42:53.580
this means that the malinvestments generated by the boom have to be liquidated.

486
00:42:53.580 --> 00:42:54.820
They must be liquidated.

487
00:42:54.820 --> 00:42:57.780
And that once the boom and its wasteful investments have been launched,

488
00:42:57.780 --> 00:43:03.340
The recession becomes the only, not only inevitable, but a healthy, forms a very healthy role,

489
00:43:03.340 --> 00:43:07.060
performing the function of cleansing the economy of this wasteful malinvestment,

490
00:43:07.060 --> 00:43:10.020
and getting us back to free market production.

491
00:43:10.020 --> 00:43:18.100
So therefore, according to the Austrian theory, recession is a healthy consequence of the evil malinvestment, so to speak,

492
00:43:18.100 --> 00:43:20.060
generated by the inflationary boom.

493
00:43:20.060 --> 00:43:22.700
And so what the government policy should be is not to do anything.

494
00:43:22.700 --> 00:43:26.380
In other words, allow the recession, first of all, stop the inflation if you're inflating,

495
00:43:26.380 --> 00:43:36.380
And if you're in a recession, allow the recession to run its course as quickly as possible because the more quickly it runs its course, the sooner we get back to a healthy economic situation.

496
00:43:36.380 --> 00:43:42.380
So this means that the Austrian prescription is the exact opposite of both the Keynesian and the Friedman prescription for recessions.

497
00:43:42.380 --> 00:43:49.380
Not to inflate more, not to keep inflating three or four percent per year, but to stop inflating, period, and keep stopping it.

498
00:43:49.380 --> 00:44:19.380
Now, the problem is here, again, Friedman, just as Fisher did 40 years ago, really has no business cycle theory, has no conception of why a boom leads to a bust, it's all sort of a random fluctuation, a random dance of a dollar, and therefore no conception of the healthy function of the recessions performed, and so he simply said, wow, there's a recession, you pump money in, in essence, if there's too much of inflation, you stop pumping money in.

499
00:44:19.380 --> 00:44:43.380
Professor Mises' theory is the only theory I think has ever been coined, which explains this phenomenon, which we've gotten in the last couple of years, which has really hit us during this recession, the phenomenon of prices going up, consumer goods prices going up, at the same time we have recession and unemployment.

500
00:44:43.380 --> 00:44:55.380
This phenomenon puts the establishment economists in a real bind because all the establishment knows, whether it's monetary establishment or fiscal establishment,

501
00:44:55.380 --> 00:45:01.380
all they know is if it's a recession you pump money in and you spend more, and if it's an inflation you stop pumping money in and take some money out.

502
00:45:01.380 --> 00:45:09.380
What do you do if both are happening at the same time? What do you do if consumer goods prices are going up at the same time as business failures and unemployment and all the rest of it?

503
00:45:09.380 --> 00:45:10.380
and the rest of it.

504
00:45:10.380 --> 00:45:15.380
And one time during the 1958 recession I had the occasion to attend a lecture with Professor Burns

505
00:45:15.380 --> 00:45:19.380
who in those days was head of the Council of Economic Advisers

506
00:45:19.380 --> 00:45:24.380
and I asked him this question because at that time this phenomenon had appeared already

507
00:45:24.380 --> 00:45:26.380
so I asked him this question. I said, what would you do?

508
00:45:26.380 --> 00:45:28.380
What would you recommend doing in this situation?

509
00:45:28.380 --> 00:45:31.380
He said, well, don't worry about it because we're getting out of the recession very quickly

510
00:45:31.380 --> 00:45:32.380
in a couple of months and we'll be over.

511
00:45:32.380 --> 00:45:34.380
I said, okay, I can see that.

512
00:45:34.380 --> 00:45:38.380
What happens if some future time we don't get out of it very quickly?

513
00:45:38.380 --> 00:45:45.380
And what he said then, I've stayed with me ever since, he said, in that case we all have to resign, unquote.

514
00:45:45.380 --> 00:45:57.380
But I'm calling upon him and the rest of the people out there in Washington to resign, to fulfill this role, resign post-haste.

515
00:45:57.380 --> 00:46:03.380
Actually, of course, consumer goods prices always did rise during the recession.

516
00:46:03.380 --> 00:46:33.380
The only thing is, none of us knew about it, none of us really cared, because oil prices, prices in general, were falling, because there was a monetary deflation, every pre-war recession, pre-World War II recession, the money supply would fall and prices would fall, consumer goods prices wouldn't fall as much as the other prices, and this would form the same function, the same role of consumer goods prices, in other words, would rise relative to other prices, but nobody worried about it, obviously. Nowadays, of course, with our new, modern, developed scientific system, we don't have any deflation anymore,

517
00:46:33.380 --> 00:46:48.380
is impossible. The government has arranged the banking system in such a way that the money supply can never ever fall and so we don't have prices falling anymore and so we have a phenomenon in recession of consumer goods prices starkly going up and it of course upsets everybody as well at night.

518
00:46:48.380 --> 00:47:01.380
Now the reason for the reason why consumer goods prices go up during a recession again has been explained by the Austrian Professor Mises' theory which is that during a recession resources have to shift from capital goods to consumer goods and in doing that,

519
00:47:01.380 --> 00:47:08.380
In doing that, reflecting this higher consumption investment ratio than actually the economy had been working on

520
00:47:08.380 --> 00:47:11.380
And in doing that, resources shift from capital goods to consumer goods

521
00:47:11.380 --> 00:47:14.380
Consumer goods prices go up and capital goods prices go down

522
00:47:14.380 --> 00:47:18.380
Reflecting this different shift of demand-supply

523
00:47:18.380 --> 00:47:20.380
So this, as I say, has always been taking place

524
00:47:20.380 --> 00:47:22.380
It's only now that it's been starkly revealed

525
00:47:22.380 --> 00:47:24.380
Now we've been saved from deflation

526
00:47:24.380 --> 00:47:26.380
The starkly revealed, we get the worst of both worlds now

527
00:47:26.380 --> 00:47:29.380
In our current scientifically organized recession

528
00:47:29.380 --> 00:47:35.140
session, we have prices going up and unemployment. Of course another

529
00:47:35.140 --> 00:47:38.260
thing is that Friedman again really again is very mechanical kind of

530
00:47:38.260 --> 00:47:42.460
mathematical statistical approach tends to ignore the fact that the demand for

531
00:47:42.460 --> 00:47:46.980
money is not really stable it varies and varies really in accordance with

532
00:47:46.980 --> 00:47:50.780
expectations of prices going up and people now come finally come to

533
00:47:50.780 --> 00:47:53.860
inclusion you know we're now at Professor Mises talk about the various stages of

534
00:47:53.860 --> 00:47:57.340
inflation you have the first stage and people think the prices will go back to

535
00:47:57.340 --> 00:48:27.340
in a normal pretty soon, it was the old naive days, prices are going up, well it's purely war time or something, it'll go back soon, we've abandoned that, the public has now begun to realize that prices will keep going up forever, every year we have a 5% increase or something, once they begin to realize that, the demand for money falls drastically and prices really begin to skyrocket, and we're just about at that point, we're just about reaching phase two of this inflationary process, and this is something Friedman really doesn't take into account, he doesn't take subjective

536
00:48:27.340 --> 00:48:47.340
Okay, now to get to the last big part here, again in monetary policy, fiat versus commodity money, another criticism I have of the Friedman position.

537
00:48:47.340 --> 00:48:56.340
One of the reasons the Fisher and the Chicago School in the 30s were considered to be radical was because they were always against the gold standard, always chafing under the strength of the gold standard.

538
00:48:56.340 --> 00:49:04.340
Friedman, of course, frankly wants to abolish gold altogether as a monetary commodity and replace it with totally fiat currencies.

539
00:49:04.340 --> 00:49:09.340
The dollar will be totally fiat, the franc and the mark and so forth and so on.

540
00:49:09.340 --> 00:49:13.340
And all of these currencies are supposed to fluctuate freely in relation to each other.

541
00:49:13.340 --> 00:49:18.340
Now this change, again, supposedly this would be more efficient in the present system.

542
00:49:18.340 --> 00:49:20.340
You wouldn't have to worry about the balance of payments all the time.

543
00:49:20.340 --> 00:49:24.340
It wouldn't be a pound crisis every two years and all the rest of it.

544
00:49:24.340 --> 00:49:32.340
It would be more efficient in the sense that the exchange rates would then fluctuate in accordance with the monetary issue of each currency.

545
00:49:32.340 --> 00:49:37.340
However, even though it would be more efficient, it would be a lot worse.

546
00:49:37.340 --> 00:49:44.340
For one thing, it would cut completely every tie to gold, every tie to the commodity money we have now, as weak as the tie is.

547
00:49:44.340 --> 00:49:51.340
And for one thing, at least now we have this check on the government that they can't inflate too much because the balance of payments will be pretty embarrassing.

548
00:49:51.340 --> 00:49:54.260
The gold will keep flowing out in this kind of embarrassing situation.

549
00:49:54.260 --> 00:49:59.660
So at least this has provided a fairly good check on the government in the last few years on inflation.

550
00:49:59.660 --> 00:50:06.820
Because one thing that the Freeman, of course, doesn't realize

551
00:50:06.820 --> 00:50:13.100
is that the government is not sort of a neutral agency, not sort of a neutral instrument for social action.

552
00:50:13.100 --> 00:50:16.860
It's essentially a Chicago position. Sometimes they're efficient, sometimes they're inefficient.

553
00:50:16.860 --> 00:50:20.020
You sort of take the thing on an ad hoc basis.

554
00:50:20.020 --> 00:50:22.940
The government is essentially inherently an inflationary instrument.

555
00:50:22.940 --> 00:50:27.700
In other words, my contention is that the inherent tendency of the state is inflation.

556
00:50:27.700 --> 00:50:32.260
If you give to the state, without any check at all, without the gold standard check,

557
00:50:32.260 --> 00:50:35.620
the total power, the gift of the government, the total power to inflate money at will,

558
00:50:35.620 --> 00:50:37.540
they're going to do it, they're going to use it.

559
00:50:37.540 --> 00:50:41.220
Reasons I'll say in a minute.

560
00:50:41.220 --> 00:50:45.260
So what Freeman then advocates is to leave the total absolute dictatorial control of the money supply

561
00:50:45.260 --> 00:50:48.820
in the hands of the central government without any check, without any commodity money check,

562
00:50:48.820 --> 00:50:51.420
without any international money at all.

563
00:50:51.420 --> 00:50:52.940
Placing all power on the hands of the government

564
00:50:52.940 --> 00:50:54.340
and then trusting the government,

565
00:50:54.340 --> 00:50:56.820
urging it to bind itself by these 3% rules,

566
00:50:56.820 --> 00:50:58.820
you know, 3-4% per year rules, they're not gonna do it.

567
00:50:58.820 --> 00:51:02.140
I mean, it's just utopian and unrealistic and kooky

568
00:51:02.140 --> 00:51:04.100
to expect that the federal government is gonna do this,

569
00:51:04.100 --> 00:51:07.020
is gonna first get total power and then hardly use it.

570
00:51:08.740 --> 00:51:09.980
And I think we know about power

571
00:51:09.980 --> 00:51:11.140
by this time in the 20th century,

572
00:51:11.140 --> 00:51:13.540
we know this sort of thing isn't done.

573
00:51:13.540 --> 00:51:20.180
The great thing, the major point, the great thing about the gold standard,

574
00:51:20.180 --> 00:51:24.820
the critics of the gold standard all say that those of us who are in favor of the gold standard are sort of gold fetishes.

575
00:51:24.820 --> 00:51:29.780
We like to stay there in the closet at night and run our hands through our gold coins.

576
00:51:29.780 --> 00:51:30.980
Ah, gold!

577
00:51:30.980 --> 00:51:36.180
It's a lot of nonsense. I've unfortunately never seen a gold coin. I'd like to.

578
00:51:36.180 --> 00:51:43.300
The main reason why we are in favor of the gold standard is because gold is a commodity

579
00:51:43.300 --> 00:51:48.300
In order to get it, it's costly to get it. You have to dig it out of the ground. That costs a lot.

580
00:51:48.300 --> 00:51:54.300
You have to produce it, sell it, and so forth. This is all costly to discover and mine it.

581
00:51:54.300 --> 00:51:59.300
And it creates this market check, an automatic market check on government tendency toward inflation.

582
00:51:59.300 --> 00:52:04.300
Whereas fiat paper, government paper, doesn't have this check of high cost and so forth.

583
00:52:04.300 --> 00:52:08.300
It's very easy to, it's almost costless to print money.

584
00:52:08.300 --> 00:52:14.300
Also, another point is, I think a very important one, is that money is really a key command post of the entire economic system.

585
00:52:14.300 --> 00:52:19.300
Money, of course, is used in every exchange, every transaction, as money is one part of it.

586
00:52:19.300 --> 00:52:25.300
So money is the most important single commodity, and he who controls the money supply, I think, is a long way to controlling the whole economic system,

587
00:52:25.300 --> 00:52:30.300
regardless of whether you say, well, yes, we're in favor of the free market, we're against any intervention except in money.

588
00:52:30.300 --> 00:52:34.300
But if you allow intervention in money, you've really got the whole system in your hands anyway.

589
00:52:34.300 --> 00:52:43.300
As I say, Friedman would not only leave this power in the hands of the state, he welcomes it, he's in favor of it, he sort of would shove the power in the hands of the state, this unlimited power to print money.

590
00:52:43.300 --> 00:52:52.300
The state printing of money, and of course there's a bank credit based on the whole banking, the controlled banking system, which is really a government operation by this time.

591
00:52:52.300 --> 00:52:57.300
This whole system is really nothing more nor less, I think very bluntly, simply legalized counterfeiting.

592
00:52:57.300 --> 00:53:02.300
The reason why I think the inherent tendency of the state is inflation is simply this.

593
00:53:02.300 --> 00:53:06.700
If you, or I, or any one of us, or any group of us, were given an absolute power,

594
00:53:06.700 --> 00:53:09.500
you know, somebody came to us and handed us the printing presses, and said,

595
00:53:09.500 --> 00:53:13.400
okay, you guys from now on have a complete control of the printing presses.

596
00:53:13.400 --> 00:53:16.100
You have a compulsory monopoly of the printing presses.

597
00:53:16.100 --> 00:53:19.700
You can print whatever you want, whatever money you want, you can use it for any purposes you want.

598
00:53:19.700 --> 00:53:23.800
Anybody else who prints it gets shot, or gets 30 years in jail.

599
00:53:23.800 --> 00:53:27.000
And, you know, then it's handed to us. What will we do with it? We print it.

600
00:53:27.000 --> 00:53:29.800
We use it. I think it's, you know, it's inevitable.

601
00:53:29.800 --> 00:53:31.000
And this is what happens with the government.

602
00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:36.800
The government has allocated to itself, and arrogated to itself, the compulsory monopoly of the use of the printing press, and so they use it.

603
00:53:36.800 --> 00:53:45.600
It's as simple as all that. And they use it more and more, and it's very easy. You don't have to work, you make money without working for it, without even taxing for it.

604
00:53:45.600 --> 00:53:51.400
Taxes are kind of, working is a pain in the neck, and taxing is kind of onerous, it's a pain in other people's neck, and they start complaining.

605
00:53:51.400 --> 00:53:59.400
Print money is very simple, you know? Nobody knows about it, it's sort of done in the dark of night, nobody understands monetary theory anyway.

606
00:53:59.400 --> 00:54:02.400
They understand taxes, they don't understand monetary theory.

607
00:54:02.400 --> 00:54:06.480
And so, it's a very easy, you know, a very easy ready thing to do.

608
00:54:06.480 --> 00:54:09.840
And then after, when the state inflates the money supply,

609
00:54:09.840 --> 00:54:12.920
and then six months later, a year later, prices start going up,

610
00:54:12.920 --> 00:54:15.720
the state can always blame other people. Everybody else gets blamed, of course.

611
00:54:15.720 --> 00:54:17.520
This is, of course, a characteristic.

612
00:54:17.520 --> 00:54:22.000
Speculators get blamed, businessmen, unions, consumers in general.

613
00:54:22.000 --> 00:54:24.520
We all know, of course, about these monstrous commercials about,

614
00:54:24.520 --> 00:54:26.920
don't be piggy, you know, inflation is glorified.

615
00:54:26.920 --> 00:54:30.680
All of us are evil because we're piggy, we like to eat.

616
00:54:30.680 --> 00:54:32.520
Everybody is to blame.

617
00:54:32.520 --> 00:54:35.720
Everybody under the sun has been blamed in the past years,

618
00:54:35.720 --> 00:54:37.080
except the government itself, of course.

619
00:54:37.080 --> 00:54:40.520
The government is the shining knight in armor,

620
00:54:40.520 --> 00:54:43.880
manning the ramparts, always checking inflation, and so forth and so on.

621
00:54:43.880 --> 00:54:45.320
Actually, of course, they're the ones who are doing it.

622
00:54:45.320 --> 00:54:49.880
They're the ones who are inflating.

623
00:54:49.880 --> 00:54:54.520
Gold also provides an international money, another, I think, important point.

624
00:54:54.520 --> 00:54:58.520
provides a money for a world market, which we hope someday at least will be in being,

625
00:54:58.520 --> 00:55:03.520
world division of labor, free trade and so forth, it's really the basis of it.

626
00:55:03.520 --> 00:55:07.520
If you have the Friedman ideas that each government prints its own money

627
00:55:07.520 --> 00:55:12.520
without any kind of world balancing item or world money,

628
00:55:12.520 --> 00:55:15.520
the logic of it, see it doesn't look so absurd if you look at it just as

629
00:55:15.520 --> 00:55:19.520
a hundred countries, whatever it is, each one prints its own money, a hundred countries isn't so bad.

630
00:55:19.520 --> 00:55:22.520
What happens if you pursue the logic of it a little bit further?

631
00:55:22.520 --> 00:55:46.520
It happens that every province produces its own money, every state, every county, every borough, every municipality, every little village printed its own money, its own currency that is, I don't mean it just has a printing press, it means that the village, the town, the city of Plainfield prints Plainfieldianna notes or whatever, Plainfield, they print eight Plainfields a week or something like that.

632
00:55:46.520 --> 00:55:55.520
and each block for the printed zone money, each house, each person even, I print ten Rothbards and you know, that's issuing it.

633
00:55:55.520 --> 00:55:58.520
Right, not worth much.

634
00:55:58.520 --> 00:56:05.520
Now the point is, if you have this kind of situation, this is really chaos, I mean people accuse the market of being chaos, this would really be chaos.

635
00:56:05.520 --> 00:56:12.520
You have millions of exchange rates all over the place, you have to consider, let's see, what would ten Rothbards be worth in terms of 80 plain fields, that sort of thing.

636
00:56:12.520 --> 00:56:22.520
In addition to trying to run a price system, et cetera, so what you really have with this kind of system is a breaking up of money as a general medium of exchange, which is what money is supposed to be.

637
00:56:22.520 --> 00:56:31.520
It's supposed to be a commodity which everybody uses in exchange. Instead of that you have every little locality printing its own money and so forth.

638
00:56:31.520 --> 00:56:38.520
You have the breaking up of a price system, a crippled price system, and really a chaotic situation. I don't think there's any question about it.

639
00:56:38.520 --> 00:56:43.800
And the Friedman Plan is logically similar, although not quite as absurd, because it's quantitatively not as bad.

640
00:56:43.800 --> 00:56:47.120
You're only dealing with 120 governments or something instead of 2 million.

641
00:56:47.120 --> 00:56:50.080
The principle is still the same. You're still breaking up the world market.

642
00:56:50.080 --> 00:56:57.000
You're still ending the days when you had one commodity or two commodities, gold or silver, being used by every country,

643
00:56:57.000 --> 00:57:04.400
which provided a world money for everybody, and you're busting up an international division of labor and so forth.

644
00:57:04.400 --> 00:57:10.400
And again, I think Friedman arrived at this idea of fluctuating fiat money

645
00:57:10.400 --> 00:57:13.400
because he, just like Fischer, 50 years ago, 40 years ago,

646
00:57:13.400 --> 00:57:15.400
doesn't understand the true nature of money.

647
00:57:15.400 --> 00:57:17.400
They think of money as simply a name.

648
00:57:17.400 --> 00:57:20.400
The name is there, the money is the dollar or the franc or whatever.

649
00:57:20.400 --> 00:57:23.400
They don't understand that money is really basically a commodity.

650
00:57:23.400 --> 00:57:26.400
These currencies are units of weight of gold or silver.

651
00:57:26.400 --> 00:57:29.400
This is how all these names originated.

652
00:57:29.400 --> 00:57:31.400
Where do the names come from?

653
00:57:31.400 --> 00:57:37.400
People didn't all sit down one day in 1790 and say okay, from now on we call our money dollars and we start printing them.

654
00:57:37.400 --> 00:57:42.400
Dollars were units of weight of gold or silver, and so were francs and so were pounds and so forth.

655
00:57:42.400 --> 00:57:50.400
As a matter of fact, even now, even in this benighted age, if you look at the statutes of the United States, you see what dollar is defined as.

656
00:57:50.400 --> 00:57:58.400
The dollar says, the dollar is defined as being 135th approximately of a gold ounce, whereas that is the definition of the dollar.

657
00:57:58.400 --> 00:58:03.120
for the Dollar. So even now, we're far from a true gold standard,

658
00:58:03.120 --> 00:58:08.000
still, these currencies are defined in terms of units of weight of gold.

659
00:58:08.000 --> 00:58:12.440
As a matter of fact, it was characteristic, it was Fisher's beloved colleague,

660
00:58:12.440 --> 00:58:15.720
J. Shield Nicholson, distinguished economist, who wrote a book where he said

661
00:58:15.720 --> 00:58:19.520
that money is essentially like dodo bones. In other words, he tried to pick the most useless commodity,

662
00:58:19.520 --> 00:58:21.400
useless thing you could think of, dodo bones.

663
00:58:21.400 --> 00:58:25.640
He said, well, money is like dodo bones, it's really useless, it's just a name and so forth.

664
00:58:25.640 --> 00:58:28.640
Friedman is carrying on that tradition.

665
00:58:28.640 --> 00:58:31.900
Now whether or not, I admit that

666
00:58:31.900 --> 00:58:33.720
there's no economic theory that doesn't

667
00:58:33.720 --> 00:58:39.600
decree that certain given commodity must be money. It could be gold, it could be silver, it could be platinum, it could be something else.

668
00:58:39.600 --> 00:58:42.800
The point is, we are now in a specific historical situation

669
00:58:42.800 --> 00:58:47.240
that gold was our money before 1933 and then it was seized from us, it was confiscated.

670
00:58:47.240 --> 00:58:53.760
I keep mentioning this, nobody seems to be even perturbed about this point, it seems to be a rather important one.

671
00:58:53.760 --> 00:59:03.600
We were using gold coins for 1933. The government confiscated the coins on the guise of this being necessary to save the banks during this special crisis, the depression emergency.

672
00:59:03.600 --> 00:59:09.440
The depression emergency has been over for at least 30 years, maybe 38 or something, depending on what we're talking about here.

673
00:59:09.440 --> 00:59:15.960
And nothing has been done, not one step has been made to return the gold to us, and now the emergency is over.

674
00:59:15.960 --> 00:59:22.440
It's of course characteristic of governments that pass emergency legislation that lingers on forever as part of the American tradition.

675
00:59:22.440 --> 00:59:24.640
But, you know, where is our gold?

676
00:59:24.640 --> 00:59:26.880
The banks have been safe, the pressure emergency is over, et cetera,

677
00:59:26.880 --> 00:59:28.920
and the gold continues in the hands of the government.

678
00:59:28.920 --> 00:59:31.880
It seems to me the libertarian monetary policy must be,

679
00:59:31.880 --> 00:59:35.520
in addition to not inflating, et cetera, during inflation and recession,

680
00:59:35.520 --> 00:59:39.040
must be, first and foremost, to get the gold back to us.

681
00:59:39.040 --> 00:59:42.520
Make the government disgorge the gold which it stole from us and return it to us.

682
00:59:42.520 --> 00:59:45.520
I mean, it seems fairly simple as all that.

683
00:59:45.520 --> 00:59:50.200
In exchange for the paper they unloaded upon us, we want the gold back.

684
00:59:50.200 --> 00:59:55.400
So the libertarian, it seems to me, must call, not like Friedman does, for the cutting loose totally from gold,

685
00:59:55.400 --> 01:00:00.280
but the restoration of gold to us as the free market money or the people's money, whatever you want to call it,

686
01:00:00.280 --> 01:00:03.560
whatever slogan you want to bring to it.

687
01:00:03.560 --> 01:00:08.640
And so, in conclusion, on some of the most vital economic issues of our day,

688
01:00:08.640 --> 01:00:12.320
Milton Friedman stands in flagrant opposition to economic freedom.

689
01:00:12.320 --> 01:00:15.480
His neighborhood effect makes a crucial concession,

690
01:00:15.480 --> 01:00:20.280
which in other hands can and does justify almost any type of government intervention in the market economy.

691
01:00:20.680 --> 01:00:26.720
His negative income tax proposal has, in the name of efficiency, paved the way for a disastrous measure, guaranteed annual income,

692
01:00:26.960 --> 01:00:29.120
that bids fear to wreck our entire economic system.

693
01:00:29.480 --> 01:00:35.520
His monetary view, seemingly close to ours, actually provides a rationale for an open invitation to inflation

694
01:00:35.680 --> 01:00:38.880
as well as an apologia for total governmental control of the money supply.

695
01:00:39.520 --> 01:00:42.040
Finally, Milton Friedman stands the thwart of our path,

696
01:00:42.040 --> 01:00:47.040
blocking us when we call for restoration of the gold money that was stolen from us in the Depression emergency.

697
01:00:47.040 --> 01:00:53.040
In all these crucial cases, Friedman stands in direct opposition to the libertarian solution and the libertarian policy.

698
01:00:53.040 --> 01:00:56.040
No, Milton Friedman is not our leader.

699
01:01:05.040 --> 01:01:11.040
That was brilliant, Murray, and I think you buried him, only I'm afraid it won't be in the print pages of the papers.

700
01:01:12.040 --> 01:01:18.120
and it's probably announcing his death in advance, unfortunately.

701
01:01:18.120 --> 01:01:23.320
We do have time for a few questions, the evening is late,

702
01:01:23.320 --> 01:01:26.920
and of course we could discuss this for a whole semester,

703
01:01:26.920 --> 01:01:33.160
as you covered so many things so well, but we'll entertain a few questions, yes?

704
01:01:33.160 --> 01:01:43.160
Oh, Murray, with regards to your division of the world into a single state,

705
01:01:43.160 --> 01:01:48.160
could a freedom-night look at the following objections?

706
01:01:48.160 --> 01:01:55.160
And if this were to happen, the way to get down to that point,

707
01:01:55.160 --> 01:02:13.160
The money of these little tiny, the Rothbard and so forth, would not find acceptance and would be gradually driven out of existence until the point was reached, let's say, where you weren't necessarily restored to the hundred states.

708
01:02:25.160 --> 01:02:30.160
I don't think it could carry on for a long, long time. I don't think it would be true of me, but I don't think it would be true of local governments.

709
01:02:30.160 --> 01:02:34.160
I mean, how local government bonds or exists, that sort of thing.

710
01:02:34.160 --> 01:02:35.160
So I don't think that...

711
01:02:35.160 --> 01:02:36.160
There wouldn't be a...

712
01:02:36.160 --> 01:02:37.160
Subway token.

713
01:02:37.160 --> 01:02:38.160
Yeah.

714
01:02:38.160 --> 01:02:40.160
There should be a natural limit to the possibility.

715
01:02:40.160 --> 01:02:43.160
Well, the natural limit would only be the fluctuating exchange rates. That would be the only limit.

716
01:02:43.160 --> 01:02:48.160
In other words, the sense that if New York City inflated New York City money to a great extent,

717
01:02:48.160 --> 01:02:53.160
then this exchange rate would fall in relation to other cities and states, etc.

718
01:02:53.160 --> 01:03:22.160
Assume something very unrealistic, admittedly, that the government accepts Friedman's ideas and inflates the money supply at a given point every year, that is, let's say 3%,

719
01:03:22.160 --> 01:03:50.160
and everybody knows this and anticipates that this will happen from year to year because it does happen and the anticipation proves correct what is the consequence on the economy of that kind of continued situation assuming it wasn't the end for a period?

720
01:03:50.160 --> 01:03:52.160
Seemingly everybody knew this, instead.

721
01:03:52.160 --> 01:03:54.160
Well, people get to know. Everybody knows this.

722
01:03:54.160 --> 01:03:59.160
The policy of the government is always to increase the money supply by a given percentage every year.

723
01:03:59.160 --> 01:04:02.160
It announces that and assumes that the government sticks to that.

724
01:04:02.160 --> 01:04:08.160
I say it's unrealistic, but just for the sake of argument, what is the effect of that?

725
01:04:08.160 --> 01:04:10.160
Well, at the very least, you have this effect.

726
01:04:10.160 --> 01:04:12.160
You have the business cycle will be at work again.

727
01:04:12.160 --> 01:04:19.160
In other words, you have the credit expansion, overinvestment in the higher orders of production, capital goods, and recession because of it.

728
01:04:19.160 --> 01:04:24.160
Now the, you know, what the government would then do after a recession hits.

729
01:04:24.160 --> 01:04:29.160
Your interest rate would be discounted permanently.

730
01:04:29.160 --> 01:04:35.160
It would certainly be that. In other words, it wouldn't be roses either, because it would still be this business cycle effect.

731
01:04:35.160 --> 01:04:38.160
As it was in the 1920s, really, when the price level remained.

732
01:04:38.160 --> 01:04:43.160
Just think of what had happened to 100-year bonds under such a situation.

733
01:04:43.160 --> 01:04:45.160
Is there a question over here?

734
01:04:45.160 --> 01:04:50.760
Yes, are you familiar with the Korean argument of quantum money as I was saying,

735
01:04:50.760 --> 01:05:03.160
where he dwells very briefly on the probable beneficial aspects of having no inflation and having no money printing whatsoever?

736
01:05:05.160 --> 01:05:11.160
I understand he does, I didn't read the article, but I think what he does, I'm just quoting from reviews,

737
01:05:11.160 --> 01:05:15.880
He concedes that, in theory, it might be better to have a falling price level.

738
01:05:15.880 --> 01:05:17.200
His argument is kind of peculiar.

739
01:05:17.200 --> 01:05:22.440
It's that you're saving resources that will be tied up in cash holdings, I think.

740
01:05:22.440 --> 01:05:24.520
I think that was the argument. It's kind of an odd argument, man.

741
01:05:24.520 --> 01:05:27.800
It's all right, I mean, if he wants to accept that policy, okay.

742
01:05:27.800 --> 01:05:29.960
But then he says, of course, and politically it's not practical,

743
01:05:29.960 --> 01:05:31.720
and he goes back to his 3-4%.

744
01:05:31.720 --> 01:05:34.800
But it's true, I think he seems to have receded there.

745
01:05:34.800 --> 01:05:38.640
Who knows, maybe in another 15 years he might accept the whole idea of a falling price level.

746
01:05:41.160 --> 01:05:58.160
In the 1930s, Roosevelt took our gold. Do you foresee that they appear to law outlawing the ownership of silver and eventually all the metal? Do they have plastic coins?

747
01:06:11.160 --> 01:06:24.160
The point I'm getting at is that you can't keep on inflating the economy and it's an item, because you'll have your penny with the intrinsic value of the metals worth more than the penny, actually.

748
01:06:24.160 --> 01:06:25.160
Yeah, right.

749
01:06:25.160 --> 01:06:26.160
And that will have to be called.

750
01:06:26.160 --> 01:06:29.160
Yeah, you have to pull in little tough paper tickets.

751
01:06:29.160 --> 01:06:32.160
What are Rothbard's? Are they metal or are they...

752
01:06:32.160 --> 01:06:34.160
I wouldn't have the money to have them level.

753
01:06:34.160 --> 01:06:37.160
It's paper tickets.

754
01:06:37.160 --> 01:06:39.160
Yes, Mr. Hertz?

755
01:06:39.160 --> 01:06:44.660
Wouldn't you say that if the inflation were continued at a steady annual rate, you'd have something,

756
01:06:44.660 --> 01:06:50.160
as a matter of fact, that you have right now, which is a recession with rising prices,

757
01:06:50.160 --> 01:06:56.660
and that if you continue the inflation now at the same rate as before, the recession wouldn't go back to a boom.

758
01:06:56.660 --> 01:07:01.160
You'd simply have a long-range continuing recession.

759
01:07:01.160 --> 01:07:07.660
But in a sense, the addictive effect of the inflationary policy we've had up till now,

760
01:07:07.660 --> 01:07:16.160
which causes the government to have to continue to expand the inflation at a greater rate in order to maintain a boom.

761
01:07:16.160 --> 01:07:23.160
So the Frequent Theory of 3% per annum wouldn't accomplish the purpose of eliminating or flattening out the business cycle.

762
01:07:23.160 --> 01:07:29.160
The only way you can do it, considering the malinvestment problem, is to increase the rate of inflation year by year

763
01:07:29.160 --> 01:07:37.160
so that eventually it reaches a point where it's 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50%, and where the interest rates eventually disappear, where people just don't even have a use for money.

764
01:07:37.160 --> 01:07:40.160
That's a very good point. I should have mentioned that.

765
01:07:40.160 --> 01:07:43.160
You have to keep accelerating the rate of inflation in order to keep it at the same level.

766
01:07:43.160 --> 01:07:47.160
It's like a treadmill. You have to keep going faster and faster, keeping the same pace.

767
01:07:47.160 --> 01:07:49.160
We'll crack things up in that way.

768
01:07:49.160 --> 01:08:00.160
What these fellows don't recognize is the one time that they came nearest to achieving their goal was the period 1927-1928.

769
01:08:00.160 --> 01:08:02.160
And it's what brought on 29.

770
01:08:02.160 --> 01:08:23.160
Is it true that under a completely free market, if the elasticity supply of gold was greater than the elasticity supply of all the goods, we'd have an increasing price level rather than a decreasing price level as you said?

771
01:08:32.160 --> 01:08:36.160
The supply of other goods is much greater than the increase in supply of gold.

772
01:08:36.160 --> 01:08:44.160
I mean, gold has to be mined and so forth. You don't find that many new sources.

773
01:08:44.160 --> 01:08:47.160
Then you're strictly limiting us to having a gold money.

774
01:08:47.160 --> 01:08:50.160
It doesn't matter if we had flat or what have you.

775
01:08:50.160 --> 01:08:55.160
Strictly speaking, you're dedicated to the theory of the supply line being the way you are.

776
01:08:55.160 --> 01:08:58.160
It seems that we need a lot more evidence of the way they would be.

777
01:08:58.160 --> 01:09:01.160
We don't need any evidence. The market takes care of all that.

778
01:09:01.160 --> 01:09:09.160
If the market came to gold and silver as the best monies, because gold and silver had all these various qualities,

779
01:09:09.160 --> 01:09:17.160
they were divisible and durable and they were more stable in supply than other goods and a higher value per unit weight and all the rest of it.

780
01:09:17.160 --> 01:09:23.160
And so if gold, if alchemists suddenly discovered a way to increase the supply of gold by a million times,

781
01:09:23.160 --> 01:09:25.160
they'd shift to some other metal.

782
01:09:25.160 --> 01:09:29.160
Market conditions changed, you'd have a changed commodity.

783
01:09:29.160 --> 01:09:49.160
The freedom wants to make the Union subject to antitrust law. What would you do about the labor unions so that we might have a declining wage level along with a declining price level so that we're not forced, the Federal Reserve is forced to always choose to inflate?

784
01:09:49.160 --> 01:09:56.160
I'm not sure if Friedman is in favor of anti-trust law for unions, he might be, but I certainly doubt it.

785
01:09:56.160 --> 01:10:00.160
But that's going the wrong way, rather than have more intervention to curb the power of the union.

786
01:10:00.160 --> 01:10:03.160
It would be better to go the other way and repeal some things like the North American Act.

787
01:10:03.160 --> 01:10:06.160
Yeah, right, I mean, we have to use repeal of the Wagner Act and the North LaGuardia Act.

788
01:10:06.160 --> 01:10:09.160
That would be a subtle union question.

789
01:10:09.160 --> 01:10:12.160
Mr. Johansson?

790
01:10:12.160 --> 01:10:18.160
If you were to get back to the gold standard, would you recommend a higher price?

791
01:10:42.160 --> 01:10:50.360
You have to set the definition of gold, the definition of a dollar or a Rothbard or whatever

792
01:10:50.360 --> 01:10:51.360
you use.

793
01:10:51.360 --> 01:10:55.320
Unless you started pricing in quantities of gold, this is worth a half ounce of gold or

794
01:10:55.320 --> 01:10:56.320
something like this.

795
01:10:56.320 --> 01:10:59.640
So the first step has to be sort of arbitrary, you can sort of pick your own definition.

796
01:10:59.640 --> 01:11:06.280
You could follow what Mises recommends and get a market.

797
01:11:06.280 --> 01:11:08.640
Or you could simply make it $100 an ounce or something like that.

798
01:11:08.640 --> 01:11:09.640
But that wouldn't last very long.

799
01:11:09.640 --> 01:11:36.840
If we were as smart, as we are now, in 1929, would a continued expanding inflation of the

800
01:11:36.840 --> 01:11:49.840
are part of the Federal Reserve system, have prevented the depression and put us into a long-range rising inflation instead, something like Germany had in 2021, 2022, or what have you.

801
01:12:06.840 --> 01:12:10.340
Part of a market system, so the banks folded pretty often.

802
01:12:10.340 --> 01:12:13.940
I think it was before the days of bank deposit insurance, which incidentally Friedman loved.

803
01:12:13.940 --> 01:12:16.640
I think it's the greatest innovation in the banking system.

804
01:12:16.640 --> 01:12:17.740
I should have mentioned that.

805
01:12:17.740 --> 01:12:20.140
There's a monstrous system of bank deposit insurance,

806
01:12:20.140 --> 01:12:21.540
which means it gives the banks carte blanche.

807
01:12:21.540 --> 01:12:25.240
The government underwrites every deposit up to $10,000, $15,000 now.

808
01:12:25.240 --> 01:12:27.240
So nobody thinks the banks are unsafe, and that's it.

809
01:12:27.240 --> 01:12:29.240
The banks are given a blank check.

810
01:12:29.240 --> 01:12:31.840
In those days, banks were collapsing pretty quickly.

811
01:12:31.840 --> 01:12:33.140
They couldn't have inflated more.

812
01:12:33.140 --> 01:12:34.740
You would have had to...

813
01:12:34.740 --> 01:12:38.660
Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, the people were calling in the bank deposits.

814
01:12:38.660 --> 01:12:44.580
People would line up in the morning, you know, at six in the morning or something to try to get their money out before the banks would collapse

815
01:12:44.580 --> 01:12:46.820
and the precipitated bank runs.

816
01:12:46.820 --> 01:12:52.300
So you would have had to go off the gold, do what Roosevelt did, go off the gold standard, impose bank deposit insurance.

817
01:12:52.300 --> 01:12:57.860
That was completely renovate and state-ize the banking system before you could have this permanent inflation.

818
01:12:57.860 --> 01:13:01.540
On the day before Roosevelt took office, I was in the Bowery Savings Bank,

819
01:13:01.540 --> 01:13:05.400
and people were all lined up on all the windows right out to the street, taking their money

820
01:13:05.400 --> 01:13:09.820
out and their gold certificates and putting it down in the safe deposit vaults where they

821
01:13:09.820 --> 01:13:10.820
thought it was safe.

822
01:13:10.820 --> 01:13:11.820
Those were good old days.

823
01:13:11.820 --> 01:13:12.820
Yes.

824
01:13:12.820 --> 01:13:14.320
Well, I think we're closed now, Murray.

825
01:13:14.320 --> 01:13:15.320
We're all indebted to you.

826
01:13:15.320 --> 01:13:16.320
I wish we could have had more, but we've had a very good order.

827
01:13:17.320 --> 01:13:19.320
Very good one. Thank you.