p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" Many people expect the government to step in and help them in times of need. I have seen no short supply of it lately, and think if the government was to help who would be helped first, and who will it not help? Resources are finite. And even the government cannot help everyone. Is it not our duties to help ourselves if able and to be resourceful. Some people are charitable and help out those much more in need. But everyone seemingly want something and want the easy way out. How many find it slightly hard in life and perhaps give up for a solution. Indeed many people do and this is how governments start to help. When hundreds of people knock your door down, some angrily and some more reasonably and ask for help, I suppose the governing feels compelled to act. Some of it is not to look bad, and some of it is to help./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" In the 1920s many lead a very free and leisurely life. Then the Happy days ended and the stock market crashed. eVeryone got panicked and went out and got their money out of the banks. Things began to fail fast. Systems collapsed. A bank holiday was declared but it was then pushed even further. The government felt they had to act, that they had to intervene./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" Many people were destitute and there were many hobos woody Guthrie wrote a song titled hobos lullaby and Pete Seeger wrote many about Oklahoma and other dust bowl states. The depression however was in many other states. These farmers couldn't produce or afford to anyway. Many people were out of work unemployment was at a all time high. It ranged between 24 to 14 percent which is very high. A quarter of the population was unemployed. Let's use our imaginations for a moment. I know this isn't fiction. But imagine panicked politicians trying to figure out what to do and how to avoid looking terrible. How do we not look bad? How do we see ourselves in power if we do nothing? We have do something./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" So Franklin Delano Roosevelt did something. He created the new deal. This was suppose to be programs to give the people hope. To raise the morale which was low all over the United States./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" Milton Friedman thinks that this isn't a good idea. At this point you have government stepping in and handling our interest. The government has no self-interest. By the time that Milton Friedman wrote there was plenty of evidence of how government intervention was harmful or how the government failed. There were many such examples that every time the government stepped in to intervene it is detrimental. The government is powerful and is not a free market mechanism and does not run out of funds nor does the scarcity rule work with them.. Governments can always grant itself more power and is not under the dictates of the free market. Market mechanisms does not control them. You can't not patronize the government. There is not that choice. Also If the government runs out of funds it can always print and produce more. There may be consequences but its the idea let's do it now think later. If the government is involved and a company needs help distributing or selling its goods the government can step in and help them buy some or promote them, or give them funds or a number of things. Look for instance at microsoft. Microsoft dominates offices, government, government schools, and many other places. If they charge ridiculous prices, and no one will buy from them they just strike a deal with the government./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" But this is precisely the problem says friedman. It is government at it's finest. High prices, lack of competition, and monopolies are only possible through governments. Governments are responsible for manipulating the markets. In a free market, if a price is not right, the person can go to someone else who cells it. For instance if a sold a pencil for 30 cent but b only sold it for 10 and I didn't want the pencil for 30 I could by it from b. A would have to be flexible and compete and lower their price perhaps 8 cents at some point it is not profitable but they would have an incentive to keep prices low. There is no such incentive if the government helps out and create jobs or different solutions and other factors. Likewise if a certain employer was paying workers unfairly nd treating them wrong then in the free market you don't work for them and you find a more reasonable boss. Hopefully not everyone would be competing to be the most cruel. But with government regulation or government employment and all it's fluffy benefits who could compete. It would be a force to kill job creation. One of the government's new deal policy. It would be a temporary work solution which didn't stay temporary nor did it encourage the economy to grow organically. /p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" Another one of these programs was a act to provide minimum wage standards that one can pay their workers the Davis-bacon act. This guaranteed workers to have a sufficient wage and to feel satisfied. People were demanding such things, such as union type movements were probably the most vehement./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" The Friedman's response was that this is more government intervention and rules. Who is to tell any employer how to run their business. The government doesn't run their business nor do they know how it is ran. So therefore there is no right to tell them how to pay their workers. This also interferes with the market. The Friedman's claims that the free market runs best on it's own without overreach from the government. If the prices are raised for hiring a worker then where do you get the finances to pay them? Do you raise the prices? Do you hire less workers so you can afford your workers pay? Who is to tell an owner of a business how much their workers work is worth to them? Maybe it's not worth the minimum wage?/p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" Another such program was OASDI. This program gave money to those who were needy and also started a trust fund if you will or a savings account for those who are currently working. They take some money from their current paychecks, count it as their portion of contribution to this savings and then when they retire this money would then be given back to them. Milton Friedman protests by saying who is the government to intervene here. Who is the government to tell me how to save or spend my money? Of course it'snot wise to not save or to spend frivolously but it is not government's job to force take money and then dole it right back out to us after retirement. People have free will and the government has no right to do this. Also the government will inevitably mess up or the fund will eventually run out of then what?It is their money they took from us. This is quite unfair and another failing of the government./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" Furthermore, for those people who are receiving checks such as widows and others this does not really give them the incentive to help themselves. For example the blind. OASDI has always included the blind. The other disabilities has been later added inn. However, for the blind part these people can work or at least some of them. This creates an incentive not to work./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" The saying you give an inch they push a mile. Friedman say this is why you do not create this program because if you create it more and more will be asked for. And this is true. They have added more and more on to the oasdi program. And a lot of programs have been given to the SSA to manage. Low income is now a program. This program doles out money to any and all poor persons who qualify, which is quite. numver. We have drastically pushed out both the minimum wage has been increased now people call for a living wage at 15 dollars an hour. I don't think the creators of the Davis-bacon act would ever imagine such a thing. If they were alive maybe they would go for this, but we of course can't know for sure. The labor unions and their movements seems to indicate this. The OASDIprogrms and other welfare programs including healthcare has been drastically increased. Milton friedman would basically say this is an overly great amount of government control Maybehe would even agree that they intervene to an unprecedented level. Milton friedman would say see this is what you get, if you give the government power they will expand it. If you give some money they will ask for more or more people would ask can we have some too? Also for many of these people this is an disincentive to work. Because they get money from the government they are happy and content and do not want to go back to work because they are comfortable. If the government will give us money why should we work? I want cash for free too and don't work for it, it's so much easier and better. Better yet plant a nice big money tree in my backyard when I need more bills I'll go get some more for free! But the Friedman's would say this takes out quite a number of workers and disincentivises the workforce and then disrupts the free market./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" In fact if you do not mandate any of these programs you have the free market running on it's own. The market regulates itself. More jobs are free to hire as they please. People who don't have work will eventually need to pay. They may hate the government for not helping them but when the government doesn't act like helicopter parents and step in all the time, they will eventually find work where it is necessary. They still have to put food on the table. And to eat. So in many ways this will be sufficient for them to go back to work. The free market will work and does work. If the people are not payed fairly eventually they will stop working for that employer and find a different person to work for. And at some point the competition is of buying up workers and treating them fairly. The people who will not want to compete are left out and should not own a business and may be more suited towards working with a preexisting competitive business. For those people who are unemployable or poor there can be a income tax credit applied. If you file taxes and everyone will have to, you are either going to be able to keep all your money if barely enough, or not taxed that much taxes. Until you reach a sufficient amount. For those who don't even earn the minimum set amount however much that is, you will have even some money sent to you, either yearly or monthly or whatever is the agreed upon plan. But this will replace Social security. If you don't or can't work then you will get that full amount of money sent to you, because there is not even some earnings. So it won't supplement what you lack but assistance in the amount that meets federally agreed upon standards./p
p class="Body" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; line-height: 32px; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; border: none;" I do agree with the Friedman's quite a bit. I don't have anything to add but I am sold on the free market idea. I think that it is true. Milton friedman isn't the only one who thinks this way it's what conservatives generally think. It's a much more responsible model and one that is ethically sound. It also makes more sense in terms of logical sense of how society should work and why. I think we all should be responsible. What lessons does government handouts teach? What does a welfare system do for anyone? Is it dignifying? It teaches people to take and be as irresponsible as you would like. It teaches people that if you run in to trouble just look for a hand out, or when times get tough, just don't think for yourself or be self-sufficient. Also it's true that government interference makes things much worse. You can't ignore the evidence of what governments have messed up. They try to help with things, that is what they break. Also, do we really want the government all over your business? Maybe you do but I think that's a bit excessive./p