Y

Gerardo Espinal Loooool

Piotr Nowacki Do you want to be making several times the global average for wealth because of increased corporate investment in your own country. Wages of upper middle class and middle class and lower class having been falling compared to inflation in America in the past 30 years where the world economy is booming bigger than ever. And also I read somewhere that clothes made in China were only 5% cheaper than the ones made here so you aren't going to paying several times more for them.

What stance are you even arguing?

I agree with you, little or no free trade is common sense. Nations need to be independent or able to become independent easily from other nations and the UN. Rice from China has mercury and heavy metals in it sometimes.

This is the only debate I've seen Milton Friedman interrupting. There is something in this debate.

@@makisxatzimixas2372 Actually there’s nothing

@@surreallife777 Yes, but he's the only speaker that Friedman feels uncomfortable letting him complete his sentence.

@@makisxatzimixas2372 I think the problem is not that other people wouldn’t let him complete his sentences it is that they wouldn’t or couldn’t criticize the nonsense Milton Friedman was spewing. He’s done irreparable damage to the US, UK and the world.

@@makisxatzimixas2372 I’m not sure I understand. You mean the speaker is challenging Friedman?

+rd f are you shitting us all the products we are getting from Asia are of poor shit quality. here in the western world before this free trade sickness we had good jobs with good quality products. those are the Facts.

+rd f if you looked at the facts you would know from 1792 until the early 20th century the US Economy was Booming and growing. and if you knew you would know at the same time from 1792 until the early 20th century the US had large Tarrifs. so Tarrifs and protectionism do Good for growth in the economy and are good for Workers.

+Mark Knight - during the time you speak of, almost all countries had high tariffs (Although the UK unilaterally removed all tariffs, and subsequently became the most powerful nation in the world during the 19th century.) As the economist Donald Boudreaux points out in the following video, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution turned the US into the largest free trade zone in the world during that time, and that caused the incredible growth of the US economy. If protectionism works so well, then why don't US states impose tariffs on the goods from other states? Florida should impose tariffs on Vermont maple syrup to protect the Florida maple syrup industry, and Vermont should impose tariffs on Florida oranges to protect the Vermont orange growing farmers: www.learnliberty.org/videos/free-trade-vs-protectionism/

rd f a couple of points. 1 if the US from 1792 until the early 20th century didn't have tariffs then foreign goods would have been imported and then US manufacturing would never have been. because it needed to grow from nothing to a major power house. 2 you talk about UK unilaterally removed all tariffs, and subsequently became the most powerful nation in the world during the 19th century.) fristly where do you get that from and the reason why the UK really became the most powerful nation in the world during the 19th century was because they invaded country after country after country after country. that's the reason why they became the most powerful nation in the world in the 19th century. lets also look at the facts the biggest growing economy's china has 25% tarrif , brazil 35%, Nigeria 70%, India 125% and that's only for cars.

rd f and you asked me ''If protectionism works so well, then why don't US states impose tariffs on the goods from other states?'' the reason for this is the same reason why detroit is done for. its because all or 99% of all american politicians support free trade so they help their Rich mates get even Richer.

Well said. People have argued that stupid theory that we need to protect old industries. Should we subsidize candle makers because we have electricity? Should we subsidize DVD companies because everyone is going digital? What sense does that make? You are right on, sir!

Que merda de visão da vida! Que vida de merda é essa que estamos projetando pra humanidade! Inovar Pra vender? Precisar de dinheiro pra morar ? Vestir? Comer?

Si necesitamos dinero para vivir, o al menos capital. Mire le pongo un ejemplo: cuando usted quiere comer necesita comida (obviamente) pero ¿de dónde sale esa comida? ¿Del cielo? ¿Aparece mágicamente en su mano? No, la comida tiene que trabajarse, incluso si sale de un árbol uno tiene que ir, caminar y tomar la fruta, todo requiere capital. Es una visión muy poco romántica, pero es así, el capital es necesario para la existencia. Sin comida morimos, sin casa morimos, sin salud morimos. Todas esas cosas requieren esfuerzo y/o dinero, no son gratis. El mercado es la forma más eficiente que ha visto la humanidad para asignar recursos, solo observe los resultados: antes del capitalismo (antes de 1820) un 95% de la población vivía en pobreza extrema, y tan sólo en 2015 el 10% de la población vive en pobreza extrema. También están los gráficos del PIB per cápita de los países antes y después de la Revolución industrial: ourworldindata.org/grapher/maddison-data-gdp-per-capita-in-2011us?tab=chart&time=1..1790&country=CHN~BWA~TWN~KOR~CRI~THA~PAN~MUS~MYS Y repito que esto suena muy poco romántico, pero no podemos negar los hechos. Y le pido que reconsidere su visión del dinero, el dinero es un medio por el cual intercambiamos y mejoramos la calidad de vida, no es algo horrible que debería extinguirse.

All this talk of competition and innovation but what about the people out of a job?

@@jackstuhley1745 es que con más oferta laboral, lógicamente la gente sin empleo va a tener más oportunidades

*****"Free markets and free minds are corollaries"--Ayn Rand

+AlexTaldren I've been saying that for years!

I would say protectionism is more human nature

And this what Cohen calls ideology

Wow, after 7 years of skyrocketing trade deficits, and giving the Chinese Communist Party more military power, that now threatens the US. You must stand with egg on your face, concerning your ignorance on economics. You must also have come to the conclusion that Mr. Friedman - God Rest His Soul was feeding unworkable economic theory to young ignorant kids. You must also believe that Friedman taught Globalism not economics.

What are you talking about! Look at our economy! How many times just in your lifetime has the government saved our economy?I count 4 and I'm in my late 30s so don't pretend like you free marketeers like to do don't pretend like free trade made us rich protectionism is what made almost all of the rich countries rich and Milton Friedman has had to admit more than once that every economy is mixed

The government has SAVED the economy? Seriously? The government causes the booms and the busts by manipulating fiat currency. It's like saying that the EU will save Greece by printing more Euros and that EU is not to blame for lending money to Greece at the same rate as Germany when clearly both countries are poles apart. Why do you use a computer, a cellphone, a TV , pretty much every manufactured good made in China? Why don't you buy American, since you like protectionism, right?

Japan is stagnating but what is the relation to protectionism? They have High standard of living and great wages. Japanese cars are still kicking American cars asses. They have a problem their aging population not with protectionism.

Yea unless you want to be deindustrialized like usa and whole cities looted

You’re either misinformed or delusional.

Are you American?

+mike r America is the greatest example of bigger government leading to greater chaos. The more diverse the nation, the worse off it is under governmental control.

Juan Primos​ Because Germany is mainly capitalist like Switzerland is.

Of course big govts are the problem, but that doesn't address the argument of free trade vs protectionism. I'm for both no regulations/taxes except a layer of protectionism against foreign competitors.

+Monica Jones I'd rather hear about protectionists becoming convinced that Laissez-faire can help people better than a policy left over from mercantilism primarily employed by people mortally afraid that a Chinese person might have handled the manufacturing of their cheap shit instead of an American. I guess that's just wishful thinking considering how most debate works on the internet.

Friedman is dead and so is his neoliberalism.

Except that the opening of markets didn't have the result you claim it did.

Julian Cordova Stossel is the closest thing I know of. It comes on Fox News I believe.

Yes, it's called the podcast

That is because China did exactly what Japan did, that is globalisation not protectionism's fault

China stagnated under deflation?

John Lasiter ?

+mike r how does China play into what I'm saying.

+John Lasiter come on John leave it

@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?

You end up writing all these laws and regulations and hiring government officials because you don't trust us the actual workers with any real decisions. Instead you rely on all these eggheads from the elite universities like Freidman.

+HaloMortal What happened with Konami? thanks for the reply

+HaloMortal Japanese manufacturing is still a world leader. It unemployment is at about 4%. I would hardly call it failing.

***** Due to financialization of the economy...

+Colton Sparks and Look at the Free trade US. A now lost economy...

***** where do you get that from ''U.S. manufactures and exports more today than anytime in the nation's history''. and just think about the millions and millions of more jobs would they have if they had protection. and you seriously believe the fake figures of the unemployment is at 5% its close to 20%. and if the nation is fine i would take it that you support obama.

+SuperMarioandSonic Marco Wow -- How dumb could you actually be. We have a 505 billion trade deficit with China, a 58 billion with Mexico, and 350 billion with Japan. What planet do you live on.

***** You should be saying that massive trade deficits do not hurt the economist that are stupid enough to believe the failed economic theory involved in their thinking. You mean you actually believe that crap? LISTEN -- The US was founded on protectionism. The tariffs at our borders produced the greatest manufacturing economy in the history of the world, and produced the greatest wage earners. You are dim witted enough to believe exporting high paying industrial jobs,with benefits, with low paying service sector jobs is beneficial to a nation state. You sir have been badly hoodwinked by the very people who benefit globalization. A 35% tariff at our borders will bring prosperity back to the US, rebuild the middle class, who is really the driving force behind the economy.

Hahahah true. You ever hear Richard Epstein tell the story of when he was driving behind Milton and thought no one was in the car because he couldn't see him? So funny

I'll have a look. When MF drinks from the mug, it looks massive! Though it's America so it's probably like a gallon.

He's the economy Yoda

+Henry Lozano Japanese companies benefited in the US because they paid less taxes when entering the US. But yet if a US manufacturer tried to sell their goods in Japan they face higher taxation than Japanese made goods.

Henry Lozano Persistent trade deficits are a bad thing. When our exports do not cover our imports, we must pay the difference by selling assets, hence reducing our net worth, or assume debt. This is unsustainable. America has a finite amount of assets to sell and a finite capacity to service debt. Yes, the trade deficit is a bad thing in the long run.

@@artemisrafti3956 Surely we would end up with an equilibrium eventually, where the cost of selling am asset to import a good is too high, necessitating home production to make the difference.

@@MUSTASCH1O That process won’t be pretty. It will precipitate asset deflation, reducing the net wealth of Americans, which will decrease consumption. Aka, we are “paying back” the years of over-consumption. But I doubt this will happen because the US has a relatively young demographic and a growing population. We are naturally in a position to play the consumer role in the world. The financing of net imports will be largely due to foreigners buying US treasuries because there’s nothing else they can do with their surplus dollars

delinx04 how does cheap goods help someone with no job. Japan isnt big enough to present a real issue so yes free trade in that instance was fine. but china and india at the same time has basically become a endless supply of very cheap unskilled or low skilled labor and as it has benefited america as a whole the benefits have been mostly captured by the wealthy. thats the problem.

delinx04 you would be correct but we are in a special time where you can make this work. If you cut cooperate tax rate from 35% to 15% and drop many EPA regulations you can offset the price of the iPhone over here. I'm a free trade guy but if congress does this right it can work. So you can get the jobs and keep the price the same.

steve k - So you are under the assumption no one ever gets a job after they lose one. This is part of the flawed logic of protectionism. You take those same workers and let them know "hey, it's time to find a trade that you can use to find a job. We don't need a screw turner anymore." Then society advances with more specialized work that people are forced to find. As that occurs the products made in the country advance. In the mean time goods get cheaper and quality of life improves. Using the same metric US unemployment has been typically around 5% for the last century. Obviously higher during the great depression and times of recession, but that is the number it typically returns to. That is where we are today. So employment levels are essentially the same. Yet in 1900 almost 45% of a person's wages went to food. In 1950 it was 30%. Today it's around 10%. Similar trend in clothing. The only basic need products that have increased are housing due it's finite nature (housing is also advanced a lot in size and amenities) and health care (lack of foreign competition and aging society). That has left Americans with a non essential slice of their wages at around 50%, up from 20%. The free market has made us far richer that we have ever been. Yet most people are too blind to see it. Instead they see a lost job and panic without any understanding of what is happening to society as a whole.

Scott N - technology is the great advantage we have over 100 years ago dont be foolish and attribute it all to the free market. im all about markets but even freidman was in favor of a negative income tax

Yes, it is. It's called be patriotic. Something your generation doesn't understand.

The thing to learn from this is how the industrial powers with all their wealth decided to go into two world wars destroying each other like mad men.

Dumy Jobby They were in the 80's.

This interview was done in the 80's, which you seem too young to understand the issue concerning Japan. Google it.

what have the interview to do with the comments. comments are recent

You've got the facts exactly backwards. South Korean growth was primarily _export_ driven, i.e. trade driven, it did not involve import substitution. Rather than the government restricting trade to foster the growth of domestic industries ("protectionism"), it actually stimulated it through policies such as low-interest loans to exporters. The South Korean government did not "shield corporate giants" but allowed chaebol which failed in international markets to go out of business. Studies have found that relative prices in South Korea are similar to other Asian nations suggesting the policies did not distort the market very much. Your claim that developing countries didn't grow through free trade measures is false. The fastest growing economy in the world, Botswana, has implemented free trade policies. The Japanese industrialisation occurred during Meiji restoration involved free trade policies. Britain and Hong Kong also grew rapidly under free trade policies. If you want examples of extreme protectionism, look at the countries that attempted autarky (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky#Historical_examples) - the effects are usually so disastrous the policies are quickly abandoned.

StatelessLiberty Hi thanks for your swift response to my comment. But your claim that our development tended toward EOI and involved zero ISI is totally inaccurate, although I can surmise why you hold on to such an belief, since mainstream developmental discourses (and free-trade supporters) tend to reduce South Korean policy in the 1970s as export-oriented. But any South Korean political economist or sociologist (like John Lie (Berkeley) or Ha Joon Chang) will tell you that the strategy South Korea pursued was both export and import oriented, and the interdependence of the two policies was the key to our economic development. To be specific, Park Chung Hee's Third Five-Year Economic Development plan in 1971 focused on a) dramatic increase in exports, and b) establishment of heavy and chemical industries, among others, which allowed the development of industries in steel, nonferrous metals, machinery, shipbuilding, electronics, and chemical. But to develop these 6 key industries, the state first promoted export-oriented production to import raw materials and machinery needed for the development of these industries and the subsequent domestic production. And importantly, the state performed a crucial role of protecting the domestic economy from foreign capital and competition (to the point where we couldn't even have foreign goods like cigarettes or cars that weren't made in Korea until the 1980s) through trade licensing, quantitative controls, advanced deposits, ministerial approval, and many others. So yes, South Korea pursued EOI and you got that part right, but you forgot to include that we did so to expand our domestic production, which is the other half of the story. If your story is correct, we wouldn't even have Hyundai or Samsung or other corporate giants, as Ha Joon Chang observes. And this isn't to forget how the government established many public enterprises, many of them that still exist with us today. On the topic of chaebol, it's ridiculous to suggest that because the state left many inefficient conglomerates to die off, South Korea promoted free-trade. You also forgot to include that chaebols that did not align with the ideology of the state were also killed off, and those did align receive stage patronage that John Lie says "cannot be overemphasized." Samhak (삼학) is a good example where the owner bbacked Kim Dae Jung (김대정) for 1971 presidential election, which resulted in the company being convicted of tax evasion and forced into bankruptcy (of course I am not saying that this is a good thing, but only to present a counterargument). So yes, the state penalized poor corporate performers, but you should keep in mind that it also backed efficient ones that align with the state regime by gaining monopoly over certain production, debt relief, and many others. One example is Hyundai; Chung Ju Yung, the founder, cultivated a good relationship with "President" Park, which led the company to undertake several state projects, such as the construction of the Gyungbu Highway in Korea and many building in the Middle East during their construction boom in the 1970s. In short, the government was severely tied to the development of the chaebols.

BeTheFirst Wow, its incredible to hear from someone from South Korea who knows a good deal on the subject. I'm from Ethiopia, and I'm fascinated by industrial policies adopted by SK and Taiwan in the 70s and 80s. I was aware of the blend of ISI and EOI, which is clear to see played a major role in their development. I was hoping that perhaps you could help direct me towards any books or analyses you know of that discuss the Korean industrial policies and five year plans in detail. It's a bit of a challenge to find information that discusses the policies themselves without frustrating attempts to hide information in order to proselytize "free trade". As soon as I can, I'm going to look into Lie and Chang for their insights (it's late where I am haha). Personally, I've never heard of any economy that's developed under free trade policies except for the free ports of Singapore and Hong Kong. Britain didn't have free trade policies during its industrialization and actually caused massive de-industrialization in India through its policies of mercantilism in the 19th century. It's awesome to find you!

lalem91 hey man! Glad I'm of help to you. John life's "political economy of South Korea" is a great, accessible text that outlines the development history and plans. It's an old book, so u won't get past year 1999 I think, but would be plenty for your own purposes. Ha joon Chang's "bad samaritans" and "23 things they don't tell you about caoutalism" are refreshingly lucid and humorous books that has many bits about south Korea and developmental histories throughout in general. Joseph Stiglitz has a book called "Making globalization work" which has parts about East Asia, and although it covers a wide range of topics and countries, I felt the criticisms to be moderate and mild compared to say Chomsky's books and lectures on international trade, like "hopes and prospects" (more Latin America and middle east based, although criticisms are nonetheless relevant). On that note, I think it's Chang's 23 things book where he talks about the 'Singaporean problem' where he highlights Singapore complicates all free trade narratives with its SOEs, and housing and development board. Stiglitz also points to the central provident fund in his book. Happy reading!

BeTheFirst Then why did your North cousins not surpass you? The truth is South Korea had an incredible amount of free trade. South Korea mainly made its profit off producing vehicles and electronics, both industries started by Japanese and American businessmen working with wealthy koreans to make large industry. You clearly misunderstand what free trade means to an economist. It does not mean an Anarchist society. It means the acts of trade that doesn't require government involvement, which is almost every business in Korea. South Korea is by all means a great example of a capitalist miracle. If 99% of the market is free, and 1% is regulated, you would call it a regulated market. I would call it a 99% unregulated and 1% regulated market.

Because nowadays this is to complicated for people

Your notion of balance is my notion of imbalance! Your balance always brings bad unpredictable results in the longrun. The other way does not. Unfortunately, free market policies do not follow through because the state usually creeps its way to domination by exploiting the abundance of efflorescence the markets have created.

+C_R_O_M__________ there's been no bad unpredictable results from uncontrolled free trade? Are you kidding?

+blooddiamond What a moronic thing to say. You do understand that we have about 12,000 tariffs right now, right? Protectionism does not work. It has been proved time and again.

cha0sman Yeah, the Founders of this country were real morons who purely used tariffs on imports to fund our Govt instead of a Federal Income Tax prior to 1913.

We don't have free trade... What world do you live in?

LibertyNow What is NAFTA and what do the letters stand for?

+blooddiamond The International Trade Commission lists over 12,000 specific tariffs on imports to America. Hundreds of agricultural, textile, and manufacturing items are highly protected.

Shalom

He is not whipping their butts at all, I do wish they would have let him finish his thoughts, I would rather let some one whom I don't agree with prove his own folly than to interrupt him to show my virtue.

Japan knew the future because of the people. Not the Government, The products produced years ago by Japan were superior. Friedman proposed "No Draft" army for USA....NO government intervention .....let the man be free. YOU DONT WANT SERVE he said ok......WRONG. LOOK at our Military now. Hes a Zionist Jew. Look at how Israel does it.....they have a draft army. Gotta serve.

Tom Tapp There is a big difference when it comes to Israel, they are few in numbers and are surrounded by a hundred million of an angry enemy

fudgedog Israel is the PRIME Racist country....I dont even understand your response?????

Uh. No?

chunga woo woonga bullshit. Million is right

Capitalism doing what its best at creating economic crisis.

Friedman wags his finger at the bosses like the really care about anything but making the most short term corporate profits anyway possible.

Thanks Javier

Matt how do you counter the argument for supply chain security- Ie the rationale for chips act ?