???????????

Reforming healthcare is something that only gets more complicated with time. Rising costs, increased government involvement, and complex insurance policies only compound the problem further. These are problems that have been going on for decades with no clear resolution. But, what about looking at healthcare from an economic standpoint? Can market forces solve the problem? Noted economists Milton Friedman and Alain Enthoven once sat down to discuss exactly that. The start of the problem, they found, came when employers became primarily responsible for providing healthcare. What started off as government price controls has evolved into the system we have today and there’s no going back. As Friedman puts it, “I’m always fascinated, not about this issue alone, but about so many cases how something gets started for one reason, and ultimately develops into something altogether different and yet, once it develops- you can’t get rid of it. It’s what my wife and I call in the title of one our books, The Tyranny of the Status Quo. It’s much easier to make a mistake then it is to correct a mistake. That’s true for individuals, too. It’s very easy to bang your car up, but it’s not so easy to fix it after you have. So that’s how it got to be the practice of employers.” So how exactly did this problem start and what can the market do to fix it? Find out in the Free To Choose Media Podcast, Healthcare Reform.

What is the most basic unit of our society which our values and norms are built around? For James Buchanan, that unit is the individual. It was his view that individual liberty should be the fundamental building block of a society. Laws and systems should be built around the protection of those individual rights in an effort to preserve liberty. His research and ideas won him a Nobel Prize in 1986, but underwent a transformation over the years. “I didn’t understand- had no understanding at all- of how the economy works or how the market works. I’ve often referred to myself during that period as a libertarian socialist. Now that may seem like a contradiction in terms, but I don’t think it really is. I always place a very high value on individual liberty, but I didn’t understand how the market operated and so I thought somebody had to make economic decisions for us, and it was probably made by an establishment in Wall Street; and therefore I thought it might be better if we had democratic decision-making for the economy. And once I came to understand how the economy worked I flipped over very quickly from being a libertarian socialist to being a strong advocate of the market, allow the market to work.” What influenced these ideas, and how can they still be applied today? Listen to the latest episode of The Free To Choose Media Podcast to find out.

The court system of the United States is supposed to protect and uphold the Constitution, regardless of personal beliefs. Increasingly, over the past few decades more and more rulings seem to fall on the side of those individual beliefs, rather than what is written under law. This type of judicial activism is in direct conflict with what the court system is meant to be. Our government is founded on a system of checks and balances, but when a court has the final decision, who holds them in check? After decades on the bench, Former Solicitor General of the United States, Robert Bork provides some interesting insight, “It’s a long way …, to a majority that consistently rules in the direction of the original understanding of the Constitution. In fact, while there may be a sign of hope here, if you look around the world, judiciary seems to be out of control everywhere. If you looked at the U.K. – the United Kingdom- and who is in favor of instituting judicial review- a written constitution by and large it’s the Left: the unions, academics, and people like that, which means that they expect- based on experience- that the courts will be to the Left of the public, generally, and give them more of what they want, than they would get from elections.” Join the honorable Robert Bork, along with Senior U.S. Circuit Judge, Doug Ginsburg as they discuss their process for decision making, as well as what can be done about this latest surge of judicial imperialism, in the latest episode of The Free To Choose Media Podcast.

Join American economist and columnist Walter Williams as he discusses what influenced his unique, and often controversial, perspectives on economics. Williams is a unique thinker. Despite being African American he opposes the minimum wage, affirmative action, and believes the welfare state has done far more harm than good for those living in poverty. Although those views are major parts of his philosophy now, he didn’t always hold those views. As Walter Williams says about one of those revelations, “I thought that the minimum wage like many, many other Americans who have not really thought about it, was a really good idea, was a good way to help the poor. And it was a real eye opener after I took economics that the minimum wage was, perhaps, one of the most devastating things that you could do to poor or low skilled workers. So I thought that increasing government control would be a good thing or helpful thing to people in general and it was a shock to me as a young economic student to learn that government is the cause of many of our problems as opposed to being the solution to those problems.” So what led him to these beliefs? Listen to the full interview in the latest episode of The Free To Choose Media Podcast to find out.

We live under government domination of the market economy. We have come a long way from a truly free economy. Consider the number of markets to which new firms do not have free access. Consider the erosion of expression for business people. Consider the plethora of government regulations American business must contend with. Can these trends be reversed? It is harder to repeal laws than pass them. Private business is unfortunately shortsighted when it turns to politics. But count among the favorable signs the very inefficiency of government—and the American public’s growing recognition of this fact. Business can do relatively little to reverse this trend (though it can at least become more sophisticated and farsighted in political planning), but business people as individuals, as citizens, must seek to persuade the public that we are already on the road to a collectivist state, that if we continue it, we will lose prosperity and liberty. In Milton’s own words, “Make no mistake about it: human freedom cannot exist- human freedom has never existed-without a viable, healthy, free market economy. And that is what is being destroyed. That is what is being destroyed as much by its alleged friends, as by its announced enemies. This country remains predominantly a free country; it remains the freest major country in the world. There are some minor countries that have a greater degree of freedom, but among the major countries we remain the real stronghold of freedom. And yet, it is worth taking a few moments to look at how far we have come from a truly free economy, a truly free society.” So how far have we come? Find out in the podcast, Milton Friedman Speaks – The Future of Our Society.

If the government has the power and responsibility to promote equality of income, then how do we define the concept of equality? Jefferson, in his Declaration of Independence, meant equality before the law, a concept necessary precisely because people are not equal in tastes, values, or capacities. Later, equality came to mean equality of opportunity—the chance to run a fair race. Within a free market system, both definitions are consistent with other values: Efficiency, justice, and liberty. More recently, equality has come to mean equality of outcome. Equality of outcome cannot be mandated, cannot be insured. Any serious attempt to achieve it would destroy freedom. In Milton’s own words, “There is no way in any literal sense you can achieve equality of oppor­tunity, and yet the concept has a meaning and a significance. What we really mean by it, I believe, is not the literal sense that people shall have equal opportunities, because that’s impossible. What we really mean is something else…that every career shall be open to every individual who shall have the talent, and the ability, and the good fortune to have had the upbringing which would qualify him for it. The meaning of equality of opportunity, in this sense, is that there shall be no arbitrary obstacles placed to prevent people from achieving those careers, those positions, those opportunities for which they have the ability, and the capac­ity and the taste to qualify. In that sense, equality of opportunity, as we shall see, is also a necessary condition for freedom.” So how do we correct course? Take a listen and find out in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Equality and Freedom in the Free Enterprise System.

Unions offer protection to workers in some situations, but union membership represents only one fifth of the American labor force. And while some unions do benefit their members, it is generally at the expense of competing workers and frequently at the expense of the consumer. Government? Government provides some protection, but its efforts are minor. Some workers with only one possible employer—or with no possible employer— enjoy very little protection. The right answer to the question “Who protects the worker?” is that the worker is protected by employers; by the existence of other employers who can and will compete for his or her services if a present employer fails to provide decent wages and working conditions. The only real way to protect the standard of living of the American worker is to preserve a freely competitive labor market. So where did these protections come from in the past? As Milton put it, “It could not very well have been unions that were protecting the worker, since there were almost no unions… It could not have been the government that was pro­tecting the worker, because over that period government was very small. So it could not conceivably have been the government that was protecting the worker. Moreover, not only was spending low, but there was very little government involvement in the economy in any way. And it could not have been nobody who was protecting the worker, because that was a period of enormous progress for the ordinary worker.” So how are they protected, or do they even need protecting? Take a listen and find out in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Who Protects the Worker?

Consumer legislation doesn’t protect the consumer in the end. Rather, it benefits the consumer advocates, including reformers, special interest groups, and regulatory agencies. What does protect the consumer? Alternative sources of supply at variable prices are the inevitable result of international competition—free trade. Milton does not mince words when it comes to his perception of the matter, “These agencies, these regulations, these bureaucrats have not only picked our pocket but they have left us less well-protected than we were before. When we as consumers really need help, we will find the self-styled consumer advocates conspicuous by their absence. Now let me emphasize that I’m not questioning the motives of the people involved. You know there’s an old saying that you all know about what it is that the road to hell is paved with. Intentions are one thing; it’s results we want to look at.” So what are the results? Take a listen, in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Who Protects the Consumer?

The quality of public education in America today in many places is in a clear downward spiral. Dr. Friedman identifies the increasing centralization and bureaucratization of the educational establishment, which inhibits educators from seeing and responding to the needs of their “consumers” — parents and students; He also touches on our altered view of the relationship between the individual and society— the shift from seeing the individual as responsible for oneself to seeing the individual as someone controlled by social forces. An obvious solution is to give power back to the parents. Could the voucher system be a means of exercising that power and foster competition among public and private institutions? Would that incite them to offer us a better quality educational “product”? As Milton sees it, “We have seen problems of discipline, problems of schools becoming places for keeping people rather than for schooling and educating people. Throughout the country SAT scores, College Board scores, have been going down for some fifteen or twenty years. At every level we have a deplorable state of our present educational system. And as I say, I need spend very little time over the fact that it is a problem about which we should be very much aware, and about which it is essential to try to do something.” What is that something? Listen to the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Putting Learning Back in the Classroom to find out.

It is believed by some that increasing government involvement in medical care will take us toward fully socialized medicine. This trend is clearly against the interests of patients, physicians, and other health care personnel. There is of course, no such thing as “free” health care —you either pay for it directly, or via the tax system, with bureaucrats taking their usual cut along the way. The reality of the situation is that government involvement in the economics of medical care leads directly to higher costs for that care. Is there a special role for government in medical care? As far is Milton is concerned, the current scenario would work out close to something like this, “The spending for the provision of medical care inevitably leads to control over the fees that are charged for medical care. And it should. If government is going to spend money, it ought to be concerned with what it pays for what it gets. Control over fees inevitably leads to control over the practices that are followed… over the behavior of the medical personnel. And if this trend continues, it inevitably leads to completely socialized medicine.” Is he right? Hear more about what Milton has to say in the podcast, Milton Friedman Speaks – The Economics of Medical Care.

It’s pointless to try to predict the availability of adequate sources of energy. What we need is an adjustable mechanism to enable us to adapt to whatever happens. We already have such a mechanism. The market helps us make transitions to the future—just as it has done in the past— if it is allowed to operate freely. Our prospects will be much improved if we can devise means to abolish —or at least work around—the government controls that interfere with the production and distribution and use of energy. It’s not a problem unique to energy, as Milton says, “The problem in energy and in the approach to energy is part of a much broader problem and a problem which we will be faced with and have been faced with in a variety of other areas and not merely in the energy area. It is what you might call the difference between the economic way of thinking and the engineering way of thinking.” So why don’t we just leave markets to function on their own? Take a listen and find out in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – The Energy Crisis.

If free trade is so good, why is protectionism so popular? Part of the answer lies in a simple political principle — interests that are concentrated (those of the producer) are more politically effective than interests that are diffused (those of the consumer). Protection does not create jobs or move goods; rather, it forces us to expend greater effort to get the goods we produce, since they cost more to produce at home than abroad. The balance of payments can take care of itself, provided we do not manipulate foreign exchange markets to put an artificial value on the dollar. The right solution is to dismantle systematically our own trade barriers and set an example for the rest of the world. Although economists often disagree, one point has been met with almost unilateral acceptance. “With respect to the question of whether it is desirable for a country to have free trade or to have tariffs and other restrictions on imports and exports, in that particular area economists have spoken with almost one voice for some two hundred years. Ever since the father of modern economics, Adam Smith, published his great book, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776 -the same year in which the Declaration of Independence was issued in this country – ever since then the economics profession has been almost unanimous on the subject of the desirability of free trade.” Hear about the damage protectionism has done and why free markets are so misunderstood in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Free Trade: Producer vs. Consumer.

Why do Americans pay more in taxes than they really want to? Can they do anything about it? Americans must understand that their true tax burden is what the government spends, regardless of how that spending is financed. If government spending goes up faster than prices in general, the real tax burden increases. Simplifying the system is far from easy, but the real defect is not in the tax system anyway, but in the budget structure. Our only hope for tax reduction is in establishing constitutional provisions that will set limits on government spending. Nonetheless, spending keeps increasing despite growing discontent from taxpayers. As Milton puts it, “How is it that if you were to conduct a poll among the people of the United States, if you were to ask them, each and every one of them, do you think you are getting your money’s worth for the 40 percent of your income that is being spent on your behalf by governmental bureaucrats, the number of people who would say yes to that would be very small, and all of those would be employees of the U.S. government.” So is it possible to reform taxes? Hear for yourself in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Is Tax Reform Possible?

Inflation is blamed on many things but it has only one cause. It is a monetary phenomenon. Inflation occurs when the quantity of money increases faster than the quantity of goods. Why does the money supply increase? Very often it does so to enable the government to pay its bills without raising taxes. There’s only one real cure for inflation. It is a cure that’s easy to describe but difficult to apply. The government must reduce spending and print less money. The alternatives are both recession and double-digit inflation. In Milton Friedman’s own words, “Inflation is a disease. It’s a dangerous disease for a society. It is sometimes a fatal disease for a society. It’s a disease that if allowed to rage unchecked can destroy a society, and we have many such examples…it behooves us as a nation to pay attention to this disease, to ask ourselves what is the cause of the disease, how do you cure the disease, what are the effects of the cure, what are the side effects of it, and what will happen if we don’t cure it?” So, what is the solution? Hear Milton’s take on the problem in the podcast, Milton Friedman Speaks – Money and Inflation.

The welfare state is an attempt to “do good” with someone else’s money. The aim may be worthy but the means are faulty. The problem is that you do not spend someone else’s money as carefully as your own. More to the point, it’s impossible to “do good” with someone else’s money without first taking it away from someone else. That implies coercion—the use of bad means to corrupt the good ends of the welfare state. Welfare programs implicitly encourage competition for government funds and create unfortunate divisions and antagonisms in our society that erode individual freedom. We must find other means—voluntary cooperation and private giving, for example — to achieve our objective. In this episode, Milton Friedman poses the question, “Why it is that the noble objectives which have animated the growth of the welfare state have produced results that disappoint almost everybody- regardless of whether they were initially in favor or initially opposed to the various measures; and finally, ask ourselves what if anything is the alternative to it and what can we do about it?” Find out where he thinks the problems of this noble intention truly lie in the podcast above, Milton Friedman Speaks – What is Wrong with the Welfare State?.

If we are to define the role of government in a free society, we must first specify the needs a government is expected to provide. Defense from foreign enemies and protection of property, including the enforcement of private contracts, are clearly legitimate functions of government. But when we come to two other functions of government—providing a substitute for voluntary cooperation when it appears impossible to achieve, and providing for irresponsible individuals— the justification is much less clear-cut. In a free society people should be able to take risks but should not be able to force others to pay the consequences. If the proper limitations of government action were observed, the government would not do many things it now does. We should not resort to government regulations until we have adequately explored the possibilities for coordinating our activities through voluntary means. If we understood the implications of our own values, we would not allow ourselves to be “front men” for values we oppose, merely because we are confused about the meaning of freedom and the legitimate role of government in a free society. As Milton Friedman puts it, “It’s often forgotten that a corollary to freedom of speech is freedom to listen. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to force anybody to listen to what you have to say. Freedom of speech means the freedom to stand up, and hire a hall and offer to speak, and let anybody come who wants to listen to you. (It’s) a very sharp contrast to that kind of freedom is the freedom that was suggested back in the days of World War II by Franklin Roosevelt, when he spoke of the four freedoms and spoke of the freedom from want. That’s a very different kind of freedom.” Hear what else he has to say about the role of government in the podcast above, Milton Friedman Speaks – The Role of Government in a Free Society.

Is Capitalism humane? According to Milton Friedman, the question is irrelevant. Capitalism per se is not humane or inhumane; nor is Socialism. If we compare the two in terms of results, it is clear that only capitalism fosters equality and works toward social justice. The one is based on the principle of voluntary cooperation and free exchange, the other on force of position and power. In a free economy, it is hard to do good. You either have to use your own hard-earned money to do it or work hard to persuade others to your course. But by the same token, it is difficult to do harm because by preventing a concentration of power, capitalism prevents people from committing sustained, serious harm. Is capitalism humane or inhumane? It is neither. But it tends to give free rein to the human values of human beings. In this program, Milton states, “The argument used to be about strictly the form of economic organization: should we have government control of production and distribution, or should we have a market control? And the argument used to be made in terms of the supposedly greater efficiency of centralized government and of centralized control. Nobody makes that argument anymore…But the interesting thing is that nonetheless, there is widespread opposition to capitalism as a system of organization and there is widespread support for some vague system labeled socialism.” Hear what else he has to say on this question in the podcast above, Milton Friedman Speaks – Is Capitalism Humane?

According to Milton Friedman, five myths cloud our perception of both the past and the present. (1) The “robber baron” myth which holds that in late nineteenth-century America there were powerful men who became rich at the expense of the poor. The reality is that they became wealthy by being productive, and that there is no other period in history which saw such a rapid and widespread improvement in the well-being of the average individual. (2) The myth that the Great Depression was caused by a failure of business. It was, in fact, produced by a failure of government and specifically by the Federal Reserve System. (3) The myth that government in the economy has expanded in response to public demand. Actually, the public has had to be sold “hard” for politicians to enact every major social program. (4) The “free lunch” myth. No matter how the government raises money—by taxing individuals, by taxing businesses, or by printing more money — it is the individual who pays. (5) The myth that government, like Robin Hood, transfers wealth from the rich to the poor. The reality is that the government usually transfers wealth and income from both the very rich and the very poor to those in the middle. As Milton put it, these five myths all come to a head  with one over-riding theme, “There has been a drastic shift in public attitudes and public opinions in the past fifty years or so with respect to the role of the individual on the one hand, and the role of government and collective institutions on the other. There has been a shift in the philosophy and attitudes of the public from a belief in individual responsibility, from a belief in a society in which the role of government was as an umpire, to a belief in a society in which the emphasis is on social responsibility, and the role of government as big brother and protector of the individual.” Hear what else Milton has to say on the matter in the above podcast, Milton Friedman Speaks – Milton Friedman Speaks – Myths that Conceal Reality.

Is America still the land of opportunity or is it a land worn thin showing much bureaucracy and less freedom? Dr. Friedman’s view of America’s present situation is not sanguine. He identifies the chief problem and its corollary solution: We must restore the prestige and influence of the single mechanism most responsible for America’s greatness— the free market. Our greatest defense against becoming over-governed is the free market. In the words of Milton Friedman, “(I ask) whether America is the land of opportunity which produced over the past two hundred years the greatest freedom and prosperity for the widest range of people that the world has ever seen, whether it still is the land in which people of many races, many beliefs, many origins, are free to cooperate together to achieve their separate objectives while at the same time retaining a diversity of values and opinions. Is that still America, or is America what it has seemed to be becoming these past few decades? Is America not what it has been, not the land of promise of the past two hundred years, but is it instead a land of growing bureaucracy and diminishing freedom? Is it a land of squabbling groups seeking to control the political levers of power, of divisive tend­encies that are producing not merely variety, not merely diversity, but open conflict?” Hear one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th Century elaborate on his point in the above podcast, Milton Friedman Speaks – What is America?