Friedman: tell me is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy, it's only the other fellow who's greedy. This the world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry in that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history is where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by free enterprise.
Donahue: so it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.
Friedman: and what does reward virtue? You think the Communist commissar rewards virtue? you think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think, excuse me, if you'll pardon me, do you think of American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us well now I don't even trust you to do that let alone myself
> You think the Communist commissar rewards virtue? you think a Hitler rewards virtue?
I know he meant it in a different way, but I find it makes more sense to think of political appointees as rewarding virtue. Of course, often times that virtue is simply personal fealty or loyalty to the party ideology, but I do believe that a despot rewards those he finds most virtuous -- as opposed to those that are the most productive or the most capable.
> as opposed to those that are the most productive or the most capable.
Why wouldn't he select those that are the most productive or the most capable in the context of the job he has for them? I.e. if he's looking for an enforcer that will, with an iron fist, reign in a province that's talking about self-determination a bit too loudly, will he choose someone who's very virtuous, or will he choose someone who's happy, maybe even eager, to rule with an iron fist?
Did Putin make a deal with Kadyrov because he found him virtuous, or because he found him the most capable person available at the time for the job he needed him to do?
If your appointee is charismatic, obviously competent, clearly virtuous, etc., perhaps more so than you are, then people may decide they prefer having him in your position. In that sense, a highly virtuous appointee may be a threat to a tyrant. I've seen claims that Putin has chosen some appointees where one can see that "not being a threat to Putin" was prioritized over other qualities.
Heh. Too good a line of argument to be David, but bad enough I was surprised it was Milton. Not that I know any other Friedmans than those two, but still.
[EDIT] Guess I should explain what's wrong with it. There are two chief problems:
1) It's not entirely clear which of these is going on without more context, but he's definitely either very wrong about a bunch of stuff or is operating, selectively on a definition of greed that is far too broad. I suspect the latter. This is what lets you pull tricks like "proving" that greed (extremely broad sense) is what makes the world run and then conclude "greed is good" like Michael Gecko (but you mean, specifically, the more narrow, generally-considered-a-vice kind—"huh, maybe not all greed is good" yeah, exactly my point, we have the word "greed" to describe the bad kind, it is all it describes). This and similar tricks are a favorite in... a certain crowd, let's say. You see it again with "This the world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests." Well... sure, if you do some tap-dancing with words you can make this seem true, but you're just playing games with semantics. "This world runs on individual cells pursuing their separate self-interests". I mean... yes, and also very much no.
2) This argument displays some major blind spots about the role of government in making markets function well, and in the nature of firms, such that several of his examples fall apart as soon as you think for half a second and some of his points should also apply to firms, but he refrains from taking that step, presumably because it would ruin the appealing simplicity of his argument. Again, pretty common error and/or deliberate trick to encounter in a certain category of writing.
