Milton is tremendous. ..

Government puts freeloaders with no vested interest (did not earn their shared government subsidized house) in the middle of a neighborhood where people earned their property and have a vested interest, causing the vested people to move out.

i work in public housing and the government needs to auction these properties off and let private companies take over and do it right....tons of waste and corruption.

Arguing from a position of compassion vs. from fact is not a winning strategy. It's so sad how little much of our public FAILS to see how wrong their opinions are, and that they are so smug in their 'support' - because they pay for it mostly out of confiscated taxes - for policies and programs that hurt those they wish to help.

I wish he were still around so I could ask him why it's better to have more and more homeless people every year. The question I would pose is why the system does that, and how is it more 'economic'.

In the U.K. public housing is often much better maintained than private housing.

God, what a hardcore Friedman beating. I feel sorry for that guy.

Public housing has always been a shit state. Look at the native americans. John stossel did a great piece on it. They receive the most funding, land, and handouts than any other group yet they are still the poorest. On paper they should be the richest, but no. Why you ask? The same principle of public housing applies.

Public housing in north america has been an absolute nightmare 😂😂😂

To paraphrase the wrestler Raven. "Quote Milton Friedman, nevermore."

Hopefully the dude learned from that ass whoopin'.

What do you define as "before welfare"? Don't you think that's a bit of a vague term? Also, a quick Google search brought up an academic paper discussing black poverty. It fell slowly by 2% from 68-1980, and then skyrocketed up 4% between 80 and 82 under Reagan. It was back down to 68 levels in 1990 before going back to 82 levels under Bush, then back down to pre-Reagan levels under "tax and spend" Clinton, and then back up again under Bush, and is still rising. Notice a pattern here?

Depends where you're talking about. Have you considered they receive the most support BECAUSE they're the poorest? Centuries of murder and racial oppression will do that to ya! Using the UK as an example, Maggie Thatcher sold off all the public housing (the Tories deliberately ran down). Now there's a massive waiting list for social housing caused by the housing market being wildly inflated, people have no choice but to pay ridiculous rents, & yet 100s of thousands of properties remain vacant.

So why do you think they are poor even though they get the most handouts than any other persons on this planet?

I have a lot of respect for Friedman, but it's clear he's wrong here. One only has to look at the world now to see a handful of businesses own most of each sector. (E.g. I am typing this on my Android, using my Google username on KZfaq.) His idea that opening up domestic markets to free trade doesn't stop monopolies on the domestic level, it simply makes the market bigger - some companies now are as big as small countries. Secondly, clearly his idea of less government regulation not only did nothing to avoid monopolies, but has allowed for them. It would have been interesting to see his analysis on the credit crash in '07: whereby deregulation allowed for banks gambling public money away and, since they had a monopoly, if they were allowed to fail then our economies would've collapsed (a-la Iceland).