Testing Milton Friedman: Equality of Opportunity - Full Video

This three-part public television series is hosted by award-winning veteran journalist Emily Rooney with a distinguished panel of two Friedman advocates and two challengers, presents a lively discussion and debate on Friedman’s still-provocative ideas in each of these hour-long programs.

Equality of Opportunity -- the panelists explore Friedman’s ideas and the possible implications of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The panelists include:

Walter Williams -- author, syndicated columnist, and the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University
Shikha Dalmia -- Senior Policy Analyst at Reason Foundation
Matthew Yglesias -- political blogger
John Bouman -- President and Advocacy Director of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.

Chapters

0:00 Jefferson's Contradictions
16:07 Equality of Opportunity
27:17 Redistribution of Wealth
38:49 Risk vs. Consequences
50:01 Freedom Before Equality

[EARLandPEARL-ci]

“There was a time when we honored those who created the prosperity and the freedom that we enjoy. Today we honor the complainers and sue the creators. Perhaps that is inevitable in an era when we no longer count our blessings, but instead count all our unfulfilled wishes.”
Thomas Sowell‏

[Minder]

Oh man, Walter Williams - still 360-slam-dunking facts in the faces of the ignorant.

[mattgustafson]

The panel missed Milton's entire point on inherited talent. His point is that we all start with different advantages and for the government to try and equalize things financially ignores the simple fact that we all posses different advantages that allow us to succeed if we choose to.

[nathanngumi]

Very enlightening discussion... Milton Friedman had astounding foresight. This relentless pursuit of equal outcomes suppresses freedom.

[timv.]

The reason to give extra lessons to the most talented musicians is because we ALL benefit from what the most talented people produce. Everyone focuses on the benefit that the producer gets instead of the benefit that the consumers get.

[RedHornSSS]

Ahhh I love the old gent at 16:00
"They didnt got into professional basketball because of affirmative action, they got into it because they can do a 360 slam dunk in your face and you can't do a thing about it."

[cwehden]

Thank you these are extremely thought provoking and interesting videos.

[brianmulligan]

Williams made a fantastic example regarding prohibitively expensive Taxicab licenses in NYC as an impetus to opportunity, but he didn't finish the argument - and lost the point to Bouman, who blamed capitalists and entrepreneurs (i.e., the market) for the situation.

Friedman would have pointed out that only Government power and collusion allows the limiting of licenses and creates virtual monopolies that restrict others from entering this market. That government is the CAUSE of disenfranchisement, and not the "market". Friedman always illustrated this artificial scarcity in licensing by citing pilots' and physicians' unions as examples.

Fantastic program, but obviously too short to be an insightful analysis of Friedman's philosophy.

[jessewebb]

Im listening to these economist discuss the Milton Friedman’s assessment of a free society and i am blown away by the consequence equality of outcomes rather then equal treatment under the law. As our society evolves, we hear talks of restricting speech, we are encountering hire health cost with limited services and treatment, socialized programs like the welfare state increasing poverties in highly left leaning states, students are being left behind in terms of education, and much more. Our Nations narrative has lost sight of their freedoms and regard other nations more free then the USA. I can only attest this to increased regulation by our government in which whom is still growing year by year.

[homewall]

Taxation isn't theft. It's extortion. Pay up or else.

[schizoidman]

When I was growing up I often heard the phrase, "it's a free country". I never hear it anymore because it isn't. When the government takes half of everything you earn every year, you are, at best, half free. If the government's share of GDP is one third, then the country on the whole is only two thirds free. Obviously, government is needed for some things. Our constitution does a pretty good job of defining what the government's role should be. For a long time, the government followed those rules to a great extent and took about 3% of GDP to do it. If the government were to go back to doing only what is required and stop overstepping their authority, the size and cost of government could be cut 90%, but I would be happy with 60%.

[tdrill]

Yglesias was completely out of place in this debate - he was/is only a mouth piece that spoke to hear himself. It baffles my mind to see how such a simple concept can become complicated when people aren't sincere about their argument. The entire Friedman argument was simple - it is not right to take someone else's money just for the sake of those who need it most. We are all endowed with the opportunity to compete and not all will win - we are all from different backgrounds and different abilities. Those with more abilities and the right drive will excel more than those with equal abilities and less drive. The same can be said about those without abilities and without drive...it is almost sure that they will not accomplish much. But we have seen people that lacked abilities; but had plenty of determination that accomplished great deeds. It is not fair to reward others with the fruit of my effort just because they didn't get as much as I or anyone else got out of their effort.

[dankghoul]

26:36
"I will pay my share of the Constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government, but I will not have my share go to bailouts (welfare etc)"

God forbid we actually only do what the Constitution says.

[MrGMcAulay]

The equality Friedman promoted was the freedom to compete in the area the individual had their interest and their own faculties supported their efforts. I may not be able to compete with an Olympic sprinter but I have a head for math that the sprinter may not. The term "equal opportunity" falls short of the idea of what is intended, "Equal Opportunity to Compete in that field I choose". When the government gets involved in more than a simple framework within which the competition takes place it usually ends up hindering one or providing special privilege to another.

[dpwellman]

No, not only is Milton Friedman saying [economic] "inequality" is a fact of life he is IN FACT saying it is a good a necessary thing.

[ckkamae]

thought this was an educated discussion, these two gents simply aren't up to it. you can feel the disparity in the studio.... palatable

[santiagos]

That woman that said free markets created slavery should crawl under a chair after the answer she got back..

[homewall]

We do not tax people per equal protection. We have variable rates, preferred/disparaged aspects (higher taxes vs. deductions and exemptions), and uneven collection. If we did this, then we'd have a fair tax (proportionate) despite not being a truly fair head tax. Then if government limited its spending to what it can collect in taxes, you'd have a fair government. Printing money and debt are just a taxes on the future.

[sebl]

Wow, "The View" - the way it should be!

[injuredeternity]

The first answer "I don't think equality of outcomes had any serious force in this country".

Yeah, clearly we never had statutory tax rates of over 90%. This is going to be a long video.