Milton Friedman - Your Greed or Their Greed?

> Just don't understand how one could be convinced these days of the fundamental conceit that even a properly profitable company is necessarily going to provide good things for people downstream, or for society in general. if one has worked in a number of business it should become fairly obvious that good products and good revenue are orthogonal phenomena (sometimes they align of course) > What is the argument for that in general again? i think the general conceit is that bad or good product, someone is paying and they are getting some kind of value so who is anyone to say its good or bad for society? > the idea that companies with a self interest in profit will reliably help people or the world wasn't this idea put forth strongly by milton freidman and the chicago school - "greed is good" [1] - because more economic activity rises all...? i have to admit intuitively it sounds good even if its probably b.s [2] > It just does not at all feel rational, its like everyone in the world is dreaming. well, at least some economists anyways.... [1] ▶ this video [2] link

Very succinctly put. Reminded me of this brief clip: Milton Friedman - Your Greed or Their Greed ▶ this video > Is there a socialist government where the powerful aren’t rich in a much more inequitable distribution of wealth Perhaps: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism link

I've never understood using income inequality as a measure of the health of a society. As Milton Friedman said, the only place where people are equal is in a prison and in the grave. Milton Friedman on greed and income inequality: ▶ this video

> the logical conclusion is a race to the bottom fuelled by greed (of the business) If that were true, we would all be paid minimum wage, which is not true. As you gain experience, you bring more value and therefor employers are forced to pay you more, which is demonstrated by reality as I said, we're not all paid minimum wage for exactly that reason. Race to the bottom happens when the minimum wage gets so high that even qualified people get minimum wage and the rest are just unemployed and don't get anything at all. About greed, are you're aware what greed is? Here's Milton's 3 minutes video on it ▶ this video

What is wrong with greed? Most people want more money. Is it wrong for a poor person to earn more money? ▶ this video

The open source community is terrible at UX, Android is the first usable mobile OS based on linux with a good UX and I'm typing this from my Ubuntu laptop. Second, Android is already available as open source and there are a few open source distro, they are not thriving. Finally, we're all greedy so let's not be judgmental here :) ▶ this video

> Capitalism destroys. All systems destroy. Destruction is a natural phenomenon. The difference is that capitalism creates more than it destroys, and (empirically) creates more than any other economic system. > Greed destroys. On greed: ▶ this video

I'm fine with people hating money, but people hating the love of money? Sounds like personal issues to me. I don't hate hating money as I don't have a personal grudge against people who hate money but it sounds like you do with people who love money. Oh, and I used to think greed was bad too, like when I was 12 but since then I've figured every single one of us act out of greed all the time and waiting for a greedless messiah is naive at best ▶ this video

All I know is that if we rely on the free market to figure all of this out The government creates bubble after bubble causing enormous amounts of economic dislocation in the housing market, college loans, healthcare, and on and on... and your conclusion is that somehow the free market is the problem or at very least not the solution? contributing their unique gifts to the betterment of humanity No system throughout history has ever contributed more to the "betterment of humanity" than the free market. As with so many things, Friedman said it best: ▶ this video

In India, we don't have any department like FDA and it works just fine. The market forces will ensure that only those companies who provide edible food survives and rest are driven out of business. Taking your own example, after Sinclair's book, didn't meat sales fell by half? Did you need FDA to see that consumers didn't eat that meat? Let's imagine that government did not create FDA after that book and meat sales continue to decline. Don't you think that meat companies would have come up with a plan to restore consumer confidence? They would change their practices, advertise the fact that they are not clean and safe. They would have asked independent journalists to visit their facility. And slowly buy surely, consumers would have come back. Let me give you an example. FDA doesn't regulate coffee temperature. A lady gets first degree burn from McD's coffee. She sues McD and wins. McD (and all other companies who sell coffee) ensures that they set up right temperature for their coffee. FDA didn't have to do anything and still all the consumers are better off than before. You haven't given me any public studies where it is proven that FDA disapproval saved people's lives. The page you have linked lists bunch of products but nothing else. You have yourself outlined the biggest problem with FDA. Because FDA is made up of people like you and me and when you give them power, rest assured that the power will be misused. I would rather trust free market's invisible hand do the work