Capitalism is a system of economics in which the country’s trades and industries are owned by privately for profit, instead of owned by the state. Milton Friedman, an American Economist is known for his support of a capitalist economy that emphasizes a Laissez-faire approach. Friedman’s Q&A video, “What is America”, discusses how less government intervention would be beneficial in our Capitalist society. Joseph Stiglitz, an American Economist, narrates the second video as he advocates for more government and shares the advantages and disadvantages of having a capitalist economy.
One of the first issues that Friedman addresses in the video is the topic of open immigration. Friedman believed that in today's society you could not have open immigration …show more content…
welfare programs. As long as this country continues to distribute money through its welfare programs, open immigration will not be economically possible. With our national debt at its highest, the U.S. would not be able to financially support a continuous flow of new immigrants if the country decided to open its borders. Friedman’s idea to slowly eliminate welfare programs and use a negative income tax would provide a healthier solution to helping the countries low-income households. By gradually eliminating welfare, the country would be able to weed out some citizens who abuse the system and take advantage of the government. The negative tax system prevents low-income individuals from paying taxes and actually provides them with supplemental pay from the government. I am in complete agreement with Friedman’s thoughts on the welfare system and open borders; therefore I find his logic to be …show more content…
Friedman acknowledged that all American citizens, at one point, immigrated to America for a better life for themselves and for their families. By gaining citizenship, they had access to better opportunities, are paid higher wages in comparison to new immigrants, and gained more skills. Friedman states that we should not deny immigrants the opportunity to immigrate to America for a better life. By immigrating, they have access to jobs that may pay lower wages but ultimately give these people a better life then they would have had in their homeland. Friedman opposes “equal pay for equal work laws”. He believes that by denying these immigrants the choice to work for lower wages, we are denying them the only weapon they have, which is to work for a lower wage than an American.
I agree with Friedman’s statement on immigration and equal pay. I believe that immigrants come to America for more opportunities and are able to find work because they are willing to work for lower wages. Due to their inexperience and lower skills, this is their only advantage over many Americans. Logically it is a win/win for both the immigrants that are able to find jobs and for consumers who like to pay lower prices for their goods. Friedman’s logic is
One of the first issues that Friedman addresses in the video is the topic of open immigration. Friedman believed that in today's society you could not have open immigration …show more content…
welfare programs. As long as this country continues to distribute money through its welfare programs, open immigration will not be economically possible. With our national debt at its highest, the U.S. would not be able to financially support a continuous flow of new immigrants if the country decided to open its borders. Friedman’s idea to slowly eliminate welfare programs and use a negative income tax would provide a healthier solution to helping the countries low-income households. By gradually eliminating welfare, the country would be able to weed out some citizens who abuse the system and take advantage of the government. The negative tax system prevents low-income individuals from paying taxes and actually provides them with supplemental pay from the government. I am in complete agreement with Friedman’s thoughts on the welfare system and open borders; therefore I find his logic to be …show more content…
Friedman acknowledged that all American citizens, at one point, immigrated to America for a better life for themselves and for their families. By gaining citizenship, they had access to better opportunities, are paid higher wages in comparison to new immigrants, and gained more skills. Friedman states that we should not deny immigrants the opportunity to immigrate to America for a better life. By immigrating, they have access to jobs that may pay lower wages but ultimately give these people a better life then they would have had in their homeland. Friedman opposes “equal pay for equal work laws”. He believes that by denying these immigrants the choice to work for lower wages, we are denying them the only weapon they have, which is to work for a lower wage than an American.
I agree with Friedman’s statement on immigration and equal pay. I believe that immigrants come to America for more opportunities and are able to find work because they are willing to work for lower wages. Due to their inexperience and lower skills, this is their only advantage over many Americans. Logically it is a win/win for both the immigrants that are able to find jobs and for consumers who like to pay lower prices for their goods. Friedman’s logic is