If the government has the power and responsibility to promote equality of income, then how do we define the concept of equality? Jefferson, in his Declaration of Independence, meant equality before the law, a concept necessary precisely because people are not equal in tastes, values, or capacities. Later, equality came to mean equality of opportunity—the chance to run a fair race. Within a free market system, both definitions are consistent with other values: Efficiency, justice, and liberty. More recently, equality has come to mean equality of outcome. Equality of outcome cannot be mandated, cannot be insured. Any serious attempt to achieve it would destroy freedom. In Milton’s own words, “There is no way in any literal sense you can achieve equality of oppor­tunity, and yet the concept has a meaning and a significance. What we really mean by it, I believe, is not the literal sense that people shall have equal opportunities, because that’s impossible. What we really mean is something else…that every career shall be open to every individual who shall have the talent, and the ability, and the good fortune to have had the upbringing which would qualify him for it. The meaning of equality of opportunity, in this sense, is that there shall be no arbitrary obstacles placed to prevent people from achieving those careers, those positions, those opportunities for which they have the ability, and the capac­ity and the taste to qualify. In that sense, equality of opportunity, as we shall see, is also a necessary condition for freedom.” So how do we correct course? Take a listen and find out in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Equality and Freedom in the Free Enterprise System.

Unions offer protection to workers in some situations, but union membership represents only one fifth of the American labor force. And while some unions do benefit their members, it is generally at the expense of competing workers and frequently at the expense of the consumer. Government? Government provides some protection, but its efforts are minor. Some workers with only one possible employer—or with no possible employer— enjoy very little protection. The right answer to the question “Who protects the worker?” is that the worker is protected by employers; by the existence of other employers who can and will compete for his or her services if a present employer fails to provide decent wages and working conditions. The only real way to protect the standard of living of the American worker is to preserve a freely competitive labor market. So where did these protections come from in the past? As Milton put it, “It could not very well have been unions that were protecting the worker, since there were almost no unions… It could not have been the government that was pro­tecting the worker, because over that period government was very small. So it could not conceivably have been the government that was protecting the worker. Moreover, not only was spending low, but there was very little government involvement in the economy in any way. And it could not have been nobody who was protecting the worker, because that was a period of enormous progress for the ordinary worker.” So how are they protected, or do they even need protecting? Take a listen and find out in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Who Protects the Worker?

Consumer legislation doesn’t protect the consumer in the end. Rather, it benefits the consumer advocates, including reformers, special interest groups, and regulatory agencies. What does protect the consumer? Alternative sources of supply at variable prices are the inevitable result of international competition—free trade. Milton does not mince words when it comes to his perception of the matter, “These agencies, these regulations, these bureaucrats have not only picked our pocket but they have left us less well-protected than we were before. When we as consumers really need help, we will find the self-styled consumer advocates conspicuous by their absence. Now let me emphasize that I’m not questioning the motives of the people involved. You know there’s an old saying that you all know about what it is that the road to hell is paved with. Intentions are one thing; it’s results we want to look at.” So what are the results? Take a listen, in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Who Protects the Consumer?

The quality of public education in America today in many places is in a clear downward spiral. Dr. Friedman identifies the increasing centralization and bureaucratization of the educational establishment, which inhibits educators from seeing and responding to the needs of their “consumers” — parents and students; He also touches on our altered view of the relationship between the individual and society— the shift from seeing the individual as responsible for oneself to seeing the individual as someone controlled by social forces. An obvious solution is to give power back to the parents. Could the voucher system be a means of exercising that power and foster competition among public and private institutions? Would that encourage them to offer us a better quality educational “product”? As Milton sees it, “We have seen problems of discipline, problems of schools becoming places for keeping people rather than for schooling and educating people. Throughout the country SAT scores, College Board scores, have been going down for some fifteen or twenty years. At every level we have a deplorable state of our present educational system. And as I say, I need spend very little time over the fact that it is a problem about which we should be very much aware, and about which it is essential to try to do something.” What is that something? Listen to the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Putting Learning Back in the Classroom to find out.

It is believed by some that increasing government involvement in medical care will take us toward fully socialized medicine. This trend is clearly against the interests of patients, physicians, and other health care personnel. There is of course, no such thing as “free” health care —you either pay for it directly, or via the tax system, with bureaucrats taking their usual cut along the way. The reality of the situation is that government involvement in the economics of medical care leads directly to higher costs for that care. Is there a special role for government in medical care? As far is Milton is concerned, the current scenario would work out close to something like this, “The spending for the provision of medical care inevitably leads to control over the fees that are charged for medical care. And it should. If government is going to spend money, it ought to be concerned with what it pays for what it gets. Control over fees inevitably leads to control over the practices that are followed… over the behavior of the medical personnel. And if this trend continues, it inevitably leads to completely socialized medicine.” Is he right? Hear more about what Milton has to say in the podcast, Milton Friedman Speaks – The Economics of Medical Care.

It’s pointless to try to predict the availability of adequate sources of energy. What we need is an adjustable mechanism to enable us to adapt to whatever happens. We already have such a mechanism. The market helps us make transitions to the future—just as it has done in the past— if it is allowed to operate freely. Our prospects will be much improved if we can devise means to abolish —or at least work around—the government controls that interfere with the production and distribution and use of energy. It’s not a problem unique to energy, as Milton says, “The problem in energy and in the approach to energy is part of a much broader problem and a problem which we will be faced with and have been faced with in a variety of other areas and not merely in the energy area. It is what you might call the difference between the economic way of thinking and the engineering way of thinking.” So why don’t we just leave markets to function on their own? Take a listen and find out in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – The Energy Crisis.

If free trade is so good, why is protectionism so popular? Part of the answer lies in a simple political principle — interests that are concentrated (those of the producer) are more politically effective than interests that are diffused (those of the consumer). Protection does not create jobs or move goods; rather, it forces us to expend greater effort to get the goods we produce, since they cost more to produce at home than abroad. The balance of payments can take care of itself, provided we do not manipulate foreign exchange markets to put an artificial value on the dollar. The right solution is to dismantle systematically our own trade barriers and set an example for the rest of the world. Although economists often disagree, one point has been met with almost unilateral acceptance. “With respect to the question of whether it is desirable for a country to have free trade or to have tariffs and other restrictions on imports and exports, in that particular area economists have spoken with almost one voice for some two hundred years. Ever since the father of modern economics, Adam Smith, published his great book, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776 -the same year in which the Declaration of Independence was issued in this country – ever since then the economics profession has been almost unanimous on the subject of the desirability of free trade.” Hear about the damage protectionism has done and why free markets are so misunderstood in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Free Trade: Producer vs. Consumer.

Why do Americans pay more in taxes than they really want to? Can they do anything about it? Americans must understand that their true tax burden is what the government spends, regardless of how that spending is financed. If government spending goes up faster than prices in general, the real tax burden increases. Simplifying the system is far from easy, but the real defect is not in the tax system anyway, but in the budget structure. Our only hope for tax reduction is in establishing constitutional provisions that will set limits on government spending. Nonetheless, spending keeps increasing despite growing discontent from taxpayers. As Milton puts it, “How is it that if you were to conduct a poll among the people of the United States, if you were to ask them, each and every one of them, do you think you are getting your money’s worth for the 40 percent of your income that is being spent on your behalf by governmental bureaucrats, the number of people who would say yes to that would be very small, and all of those would be employees of the U.S. government.” So is it possible to reform taxes? Hear for yourself in the podcast Milton Friedman Speaks – Is Tax Reform Possible?

Inflation is blamed on many things but it has only one cause. It is a monetary phenomenon. Inflation occurs when the quantity of money increases faster than the quantity of goods. Why does the money supply increase? Very often it does so to enable the government to pay its bills without raising taxes. There’s only one real cure for inflation. It is a cure that’s easy to describe but difficult to apply. The government must reduce spending and print less money. The alternatives are both recession and double-digit inflation. In Milton Friedman’s own words, “Inflation is a disease. It’s a dangerous disease for a society. It is sometimes a fatal disease for a society. It’s a disease that if allowed to rage unchecked can destroy a society, and we have many such examples…it behooves us as a nation to pay attention to this disease, to ask ourselves what is the cause of the disease, how do you cure the disease, what are the effects of the cure, what are the side effects of it, and what will happen if we don’t cure it?” So, what is the solution? Hear Milton’s take on the problem in the podcast, Milton Friedman Speaks – Money and Inflation.

The welfare state is an attempt to “do good” with someone else’s money. The aim may be worthy but the means are faulty. The problem is that you do not spend someone else’s money as carefully as your own. More to the point, it’s impossible to “do good” with someone else’s money without first taking it away from someone else. That implies coercion—the use of bad means to corrupt the good ends of the welfare state. Welfare programs implicitly encourage competition for government funds and create unfortunate divisions and antagonisms in our society that erode individual freedom. We must find other means—voluntary cooperation and private giving, for example — to achieve our objective. In this episode, Milton Friedman poses the question, “Why it is that the noble objectives which have animated the growth of the welfare state have produced results that disappoint almost everybody- regardless of whether they were initially in favor or initially opposed to the various measures; and finally, ask ourselves what if anything is the alternative to it and what can we do about it?” Find out where he thinks the problems of this noble intention truly lie in the podcast above, Milton Friedman Speaks – What is Wrong with the Welfare State?.