Ford was fined $2.5m compensation in the courts and $3.5m in punitive damages. They were forced to initiate a recall or repair program. They suffered significant reputational damage.

I would argue history has borne out Friedman's fundamental point that the courts are sufficient to deal with this issue.

Your video, Milton Friedman puts a young Michael Moore in his place, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's annoying how he talks down to him and at the same time he knows he's wrong. Moore held his ground pretty well for basically a child talking to a supposed expert. Friedman actually seemed pretty nervous at times.

Fuck Friedman. The guys a fucking scumbag, and I'm glad he's dead.

That was a totally disingenuous argument from Friedman.

Yes, at some point you must place a dollar figure on human life, but it depends on what is going to be done with the money saved. If you say, we're not going to treat a dozen patients with a rare disease that would cost the state tens of millions of dollars, and instead use that money on highway safety, or to improve healthcare for others, with the net impact that you save MORE lives with the money, that is a valid argument.

What he's proposing is that some billionaire (or at the least, multi-millionaire) should pocket a few million extra they saved by not installing the safety feature.

Not all money is equal. That's easy to prove.

Give a million dollars to ten families that are on the edge of bankruptcy and it will change their lives.

Give a million dollars to Mitt Romney and he'll forget your name as soon as you walk out of the room.

Milton Friedman is a Putz!

Wow, Moore was a lot less charming than Friedman when we was a teenager.

Agreed. On Friedman and the rest.

The report was one sided but that does not mean the users of these services are not blameworthy simply by omission.

Bad journalism, surely. But hardly mis-leading. Had they tried harder they could have targeted the users also.

@truth-is-the-nemesis
now we are getting to the flaw in the argument,how i see it anyways.
this video targets the disabled people pimping their status out for cash as being the immoral ones.
that somehow selling their disabled status is vulgar and reprehensible.
maybe that is true but that is another discussion.mainly because we have not been made privy to the private details i.e:financial situation,medical bills etc etc.

you did hit on the very thing that struck me instantly from this video that the reporters never really addressed:the exploitation by the elite and privileged.

this is why i called it fake outrage.
because to me it was directed at the wrong people.

you used an analogy of disabled parking.
let me give a more succinct and actually true analogy that i find more...concise.

lets say we have a mother of 3 children.
and lets say she has multiple debilitating conditions.
let us also add to the pile that she has been denied disability status 4 times in a row from the courts,even after 7 back surgeries,is going blind and cant sit or lay down for more than 2 hrs at a time.

this mother has ZERO income due to the fact she cannot work even though the courts say she can,BUT she gets a host of prescription drugs.
she is over-precribed (and i mean waaay over) painkillers and sedatives.

so to take care of her 3 children she decides to sell her prescriptions at a 2000% mark up.this creates a decent income for her family to:have a home,eat and have clothing and even enjoy a few extras.

to accomplish this she is forced to deal with the unsavory aspects of society.junkies basically and she also has to live in the fear of getting caught and losing everything,including the very things most precious to her and the very reason why she embarked on this venture to begin with:her children.

so,my question :is she being immoral?

because while we may find these people who sell their disabled status as repugnant for abusing a system for cash,is it actually immoral?
or is it the privileged who exploit the desperation of others who are immoral?

is it both?
and if so,are there varying degrees of immorality?
are they mutually being exploitive of each other?

on the one hand we have some creative people that if they had brought their own families this would not even be an issue but since they charge a few hundred bucks it now becomes a "oh thats just terrible" moment.

on the OTHER hand we have families who seem to have a sense of entitlement due to the fact of owning a larger bank account but nobody says a word to them.

yet which is the greater offense?
which has the larger impact on ones sensibilities?

see what im saying?
from a purely subjective viewpoint we look upon these opportunists as vulgar,because it is vulgar.
but is it immoral?

@Kofi friedman was a cunt

milton friedman would be proud.
this smacks of fake outrage.
these people have their pass for a reason.who cares if they charge a family to tag along with them?
on a morality scale this rates low.

Has he lost his fucking mind?

He has disapproved of America's wars in Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1964–1973), Afghanistan (2001–present), and Iraq (2003–2011), believing that the United States should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman.[250][251] He considers himself "too individualistic to be either right-wing or left-wing",[252] describing himself in 1974 as "a political nothing" and "a moderate"[248] and in 1997 as a "libertarian".


He has endorsed same-sex marriage[254][257] and contributed to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which failed to receive ratification in 1982.[258] In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky.[259]

MITT FUCKING ROMNEY????????????????????????????????????????????

Edit: I think he's genuinely going senile.

Milton Friedman oughta have something to say about that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Fuck this genocidal scumbag.


Dude, we all hate Friedman, and with good reason. However, I don't disagree with this line of argument. I think the resurgence of true libertarians in the republican party makes this one of the few issues we could get bipartisan agreement on. I'd just as soon pursue it than malign their ideologues.

Also, I think some of what happened in Chile is overly associated with Friedman. He wasn't Pinochet himself. I don't think he was "disappearing" women himself. While it was a horrible blemish on human history, it's hard to say what exactly his involvement was.

"Only if the word 'no-brainer' appears in it somewhere..."


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

No brainer.



P.S. Seriously with the Philip Glass music?

If the essential goal of free markets is to conquer competition to ensure your own survivability & market dominance then how come Friedman also acknowledges at the end of this video that monopolies are a negative influence?, if the market REALLY worked in the manner in which he claims then wouldn't these monopolies be nothing but 'The Best Companies?'.

This viewpoint of only caring about markets because supposedly markets are the best option to help individuals forgets the key problem that 'people create markets' & people are greedy (basically the same problem as communism) 'power corrupts', and this ideology has zero respect or tolerance for the people it claims to be helping while also making them support big business unquestioningly being made into pawns of ITS GAME. To believe that the leaders of these companies main concern is to serve the interests of the individual is nothing short of nonsensical and taps into an egocentric self-focused Gordon Gekko like system while group worth is tossed aside in favour of profit at any cost.