Skip to comments.Video Flashback: Milton Friedman Schools a Young Michael Moore
Posted on 07/20/2010 3:16:59 AM PDT by TheHawksNest
Little something from the late 1970s, which means Moore is somewhere in his early to mid-twenties. At first you wont believe thats him, but hang in there. Hes much younger and thinner (werent we all), so you have too look and watch closely. After a while, the eyes, gestures, double talk, appeals to emotionalism and complete inability to understand or respect logic and facts will start to look familiar.
(Excerpt) Read more at bighollywood.breitbart.com ...
It’s painful to watch a debate when one of the people is clearly very smart and the other person is ... perhaps not stupid, but certainly operating at a much lower level. The young kid (Moore, or whomever) is in way over his head here.
I’m not convinced it’s Michael Moore
What was so beautiful about it is that Moore refutes his own argument while speaking. He admits to supporting abortion and says so he doesn’t put an absolute value on human life. Which means, what does it matter if Ford chooses to allow so many people to die a year? It’s a statistic just like abortion. If his thinking were consistent, that would be the conclusion.
We pro lifers on the other hand can credibly argue that unborn babies have no choice if they will live or die due to abortion. The people driving Pintos on the other hand, know that they are taking a larger risk of dying than the driver of a big caddy from that time period. They have a choice (due to economics or whatever) and have made it.
I could listen to Milton Friedman lecture for hours.
Actually, I disagree.
One does not have to be unusually brilliant to understand Milton Friedman: his position is clear and logical.
To take the position of the young Michael Moore, one must be clever, but not exactly straight-thinking or consistent. There are many intelligent people who make very foolish mistakes, and take erroneous positions which even an ordinary person would know enough to avoid.
It has been said that one must be really clever to believe some things the liberals endorse! An eight-year-old would know better.
This is what happens when a liberal arts major assumes that econ is so simple that he needn’t understand it before he beigns a debate. The young Moore focusses on benefits and suggests it’s venal to consider cost. Since it’s only $13 he thinks he’s operating on principle. This is how liberals think; so long as the cost is low (and someone else is paying it)the benefits should be free.
I think it's quite possible it is Michael Moore. The FAS facial features, body language, hair and skin tones, and, of course, the lefty ambusher’s political attitude are all there. But who cares? Any day when I get an unexpected dose of Milton Friedman dispensing his good natured wisdom to the great unwashed is a great day.
Thanks for the post
bump for after work
I’m having a hard time believing that is Michael Moore. The politics and economics are certainly his, but it just doesn’t look like him at all.
I know exactly what you mean- and I HAVE listened to him for hours!
Prof. Friedman’s answer is absolutely brilliant. No other way to describe it. The lib assumes to a human life does not have infinite value. Prof. assumes that it does and ponders why we decide to take risks anyway.
Oh it’s MM alright that jaw is telling but the inability(for him) to understand what he was arguing,PRICELESS!
“This is what happens when a liberal arts major assumes that econ is so simple that he neednt understand it before he beigns a debate.”
And that is what frustrates me so much with my lib friends.
They think they know what they’re talking about - and boy can they grandstand about “justice” and “equality” - they are more compassionate - if only we could just open our minds to what is so clear to them!!!
And yet....these are art majors, psyche majors, education majors.
It is very rare to find a one of them that took courses in basic economics and finance.
And when you do find one - they tend to be less whacky than most.
And when you try to point out anything you have learned while studying economics, you usually get a snide “oh - I see they managed to brainwash you well”
So - you can’t win.
If you studied the material - you were brainwashed.
I love Friedman and he is still one of my heroes. The kid (Moore?), however, made a clear error in his argument right from the jump. He applied the usual emotional argument “13 dollars could have saved this many lives” almost in the same breath as “I support abortion”. In other words, he doesn’t believe any lives (other than his own) are worth anything. It was only the usual attack on the free market system.
Friedman was, of course, brilliant.
I’m groaning at your play on words, but I completely agree, the abortion thing jumped out at me as well. We rarely see that kind of candor from major players on the feminist Left these days, but if you spend any time reading the comment sections of their blogs, that’s still a prevailing sentiment.
Oh come on. Was Michael Moore ever thin???????
He also continually compared the cost of one part with the many lives, an error in logic.