Here in the United States (and to a larger extent the modernized western world) we are fortunate to exercise a variety of freedoms. The freedoms of speech, press, and religion are the obvious ones, but also others like the freedom to send our children to the schools of our choosing or the freedom to relocate to another state if we so desire. In addition to these, we also value our freedom to spend our own money where and how we choose.
The central principle to this book is that free market capitalism is the surest way to achieve maximum freedom for the people. While this is true in theory, Friedman shows how this has become less and less an actual reality. Governmental policies and interventions have gradually eroded our economic freedoms and we have largely been blind to this truth because these freedoms are lost incrementally slowly over long periods of time and are thus hard to recognize.
The first major governmental move into the economy came with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. When it was first established (1913) the global economy was backed by a gold standard. However, within only a few short years, the First World War occurred and that standard was quickly abandoned. With these developments, the Fed was given the unfettered ability to print money and put it into circulation. As the quantity of dollars has increased, the relative value of each dollar has decreased. Unless your income has also gone up, this means that you are poorer.
Ever since then, the government has gotten its sticky fingers farther and farther into the pocketbooks of its citizens. This is evidenced by implementations such as tariffs, fair-trade laws, import quotas, production requirements, and trade union restrictions on employment. Things like registration, certification, and licensing requirements across a spectrum of viable potential occupations and job opportunities hinder people from pursuing them (Think about qualified doctors who emigrate to a new country and are unable to practice medicine because their new home-country requires renewed certification, something that can take years and lots of money.) Governmental approval of new taxes and hikes in existing taxes all to pay for publicly funded programs have often been endorsed with little to no forethought as to the potential negative ramifications (for example, if you set welfare benefits at a particular income level, does it incentivize people to remain just below that level so as to continue getting governmental monetary assistance, thus further motivating people to remain unmotivated towards improving their economic standing in society?) And when the time comes for unnecessary programs to be eliminated, how often are they kept well past their expiration date?
One of the more well-known programs that gets the most scrutiny is Social Security, and depending on the lens with which you view it, determines its importance to you. Friedman makes two such arguments. On the one hand, it seems to be an imposition on our financial freedom to make Social Security payments mandatory. If an individual prefers to live for today and not save for later in life, shouldn’t that be their prerogative? We can suggest that they don’t make such choices, but ultimately it should be up to them. It is wrong for the government to decide on our collective behalves, and to subsequently take money out of our pockets to enact the program. For the other side of this argument, Friedman writes: “The man who does not provide for his old age will become a public charge. Compelling him to buy an annuity is justified not for his own good, but for the good of the rest of us.” Through this lens, the government has a well founded argument for its implementation of Social Security, because its aim is to take care of society as a whole.
Friedman suggests, and I agree, that there are only two areas in which the government should impose itself economically. The first is in setting up the rules of the ‘game’ and regulating them. Even a free market economy can become victim to cheaters and swindlers, and the government should act as the enforcer of the rules. The second is to limit the monopolization of any one industry. If a single entity has control over a particular segment of the market, they can unfairly exercise control over it. Historical examples include Andrew Carnegie’s Steel Company and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. Today, monopolies are even more prevalent and predatory than ever. Wal-Mart, Amazon, and Target own our commercial goods business. Google, Facebook and Twitter own our information and communications. The Walt Disney Company alone owns ABC, ESPN, FX, Hulu, the entire Marvel universe (including toys, movies, and theme park rides,) Star Wars, Pixar, and more. Friedman equates monopoly and government when he writes: “Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power.”
We all know that we need the government because without it we would have anarchy, but what is the right amount? It seems clear that as it currently stands, governmental intervention is too broad and needs to be scaled back. This is exemplified by a quote close to the end of the book: “state help kills self-help.” The more we ask the government to do for us, the less we do for ourselves (and the more we take for granted.) Let us not forget another old adage: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” With the implementation of Social Security, the government has decided to give us all fish. In order for our society to survive longer and prosper into the future, we the people must learn to fish for ourselves.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Authors
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
MP3 CD, Audiobook, MP3 Audio, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $18.68 | — |
|
Wall Chart
"Please retry" |
—
| — | $110.22 |
Great on Kindle
Great Experience. Great Value.
Putting our best book forward
Each Great on Kindle book offers a great reading experience, at a better value than print to keep your wallet happy.
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Get the free Kindle app: 
Enjoy a great reading experience when you buy the Kindle edition of this book.
Learn more about Great on Kindle, available in select categories.
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Here in the United States (and to a larger extent the modernized western world) we are fortunate to exercise a variety of freedoms. The freedoms of speech, press, and religion are the obvious ones, but also others like the freedom to send our children to the schools of our choosing or the freedom to relocate to another state if we so desire. In addition to these, we also value our freedom to spend our own money where and how we choose.The central principle to this book is that free market capitalism is the surest way to achieve maximum freedom for the people. While this is true in theory, Friedman shows how this has become less and less an actual reality. Governmental policies and interventions have gradually eroded our economic freedoms and we have largely been blind to this truth because these freedoms are lost incrementally slowly over long periods of time and are thus hard to recognize.The first major governmental move into the economy came with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. When it was first established (1913) the global economy was backed by a gold standard. However, within only a few short years, the First World War occurred and that standard was quickly abandoned. With these developments, the Fed was given the unfettered ability to print money and put it into circulation. As the quantity of dollars has increased, the relative value of each dollar has decreased. Unless your income has also gone up, this means that you are poorer.Ever since then, the government has gotten its sticky fingers farther and farther into the pocketbooks of its citizens. This is evidenced by implementations such as tariffs, fair-trade laws, import quotas, production requirements, and trade union restrictions on employment. Things like registration, certification, and licensing requirements across a spectrum of viable potential occupations and job opportunities hinder people from pursuing them (Think about qualified doctors who emigrate to a new country and are unable to practice medicine because their new home-country requires renewed certification, something that can take years and lots of money.) Governmental approval of new taxes and hikes in existing taxes all to pay for publicly funded programs have often been endorsed with little to no forethought as to the potential negative ramifications (for example, if you set welfare benefits at a particular income level, does it incentivize people to remain just below that level so as to continue getting governmental monetary assistance, thus further motivating people to remain unmotivated towards improving their economic standing in society?) And when the time comes for unnecessary programs to be eliminated, how often are they kept well past their expiration date?One of the more well-known programs that gets the most scrutiny is Social Security, and depending on the lens with which you view it, determines its importance to you. Friedman makes two such arguments. On the one hand, it seems to be an imposition on our financial freedom to make Social Security payments mandatory. If an individual prefers to live for today and not save for later in life, shouldn’t that be their prerogative? We can suggest that they don’t make such choices, but ultimately it should be up to them. It is wrong for the government to decide on our collective behalves, and to subsequently take money out of our pockets to enact the program. For the other side of this argument, Friedman writes: “The man who does not provide for his old age will become a public charge. Compelling him to buy an annuity is justified not for his own good, but for the good of the rest of us.” Through this lens, the government has a well founded argument for its implementation of Social Security, because its aim is to take care of society as a whole.Friedman suggests, and I agree, that there are only two areas in which the government should impose itself economically. The first is in setting up the rules of the ‘game’ and regulating them. Even a free market economy can become victim to cheaters and swindlers, and the government should act as the enforcer of the rules. The second is to limit the monopolization of any one industry. If a single entity has control over a particular segment of the market, they can unfairly exercise control over it. Historical examples include Andrew Carnegie’s Steel Company and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. Today, monopolies are even more prevalent and predatory than ever. Wal-Mart, Amazon, and Target own our commercial goods business. Google, Facebook and Twitter own our information and communications. The Walt Disney Company alone owns ABC, ESPN, FX, Hulu, the entire Marvel universe (including toys, movies, and theme park rides,) Star Wars, Pixar, and more. Friedman equates monopoly and government when he writes: “Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power.”We all know that we need the government because without it we would have anarchy, but what is the right amount? It seems clear that as it currently stands, governmental intervention is too broad and needs to be scaled back. This is exemplified by a quote close to the end of the book: “state help kills self-help.” The more we ask the government to do for us, the less we do for ourselves (and the more we take for granted.) Let us not forget another old adage: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” With the implementation of Social Security, the government has decided to give us all fish. In order for our society to survive longer and prosper into the future, we the people must learn to fish for ourselves.
Images in this review
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on January 17, 2021
Here in the United States (and to a larger extent the modernized western world) we are fortunate to exercise a variety of freedoms. The freedoms of speech, press, and religion are the obvious ones, but also others like the freedom to send our children to the schools of our choosing or the freedom to relocate to another state if we so desire. In addition to these, we also value our freedom to spend our own money where and how we choose.
The central principle to this book is that free market capitalism is the surest way to achieve maximum freedom for the people. While this is true in theory, Friedman shows how this has become less and less an actual reality. Governmental policies and interventions have gradually eroded our economic freedoms and we have largely been blind to this truth because these freedoms are lost incrementally slowly over long periods of time and are thus hard to recognize.
The first major governmental move into the economy came with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. When it was first established (1913) the global economy was backed by a gold standard. However, within only a few short years, the First World War occurred and that standard was quickly abandoned. With these developments, the Fed was given the unfettered ability to print money and put it into circulation. As the quantity of dollars has increased, the relative value of each dollar has decreased. Unless your income has also gone up, this means that you are poorer.
Ever since then, the government has gotten its sticky fingers farther and farther into the pocketbooks of its citizens. This is evidenced by implementations such as tariffs, fair-trade laws, import quotas, production requirements, and trade union restrictions on employment. Things like registration, certification, and licensing requirements across a spectrum of viable potential occupations and job opportunities hinder people from pursuing them (Think about qualified doctors who emigrate to a new country and are unable to practice medicine because their new home-country requires renewed certification, something that can take years and lots of money.) Governmental approval of new taxes and hikes in existing taxes all to pay for publicly funded programs have often been endorsed with little to no forethought as to the potential negative ramifications (for example, if you set welfare benefits at a particular income level, does it incentivize people to remain just below that level so as to continue getting governmental monetary assistance, thus further motivating people to remain unmotivated towards improving their economic standing in society?) And when the time comes for unnecessary programs to be eliminated, how often are they kept well past their expiration date?
One of the more well-known programs that gets the most scrutiny is Social Security, and depending on the lens with which you view it, determines its importance to you. Friedman makes two such arguments. On the one hand, it seems to be an imposition on our financial freedom to make Social Security payments mandatory. If an individual prefers to live for today and not save for later in life, shouldn’t that be their prerogative? We can suggest that they don’t make such choices, but ultimately it should be up to them. It is wrong for the government to decide on our collective behalves, and to subsequently take money out of our pockets to enact the program. For the other side of this argument, Friedman writes: “The man who does not provide for his old age will become a public charge. Compelling him to buy an annuity is justified not for his own good, but for the good of the rest of us.” Through this lens, the government has a well founded argument for its implementation of Social Security, because its aim is to take care of society as a whole.
Friedman suggests, and I agree, that there are only two areas in which the government should impose itself economically. The first is in setting up the rules of the ‘game’ and regulating them. Even a free market economy can become victim to cheaters and swindlers, and the government should act as the enforcer of the rules. The second is to limit the monopolization of any one industry. If a single entity has control over a particular segment of the market, they can unfairly exercise control over it. Historical examples include Andrew Carnegie’s Steel Company and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. Today, monopolies are even more prevalent and predatory than ever. Wal-Mart, Amazon, and Target own our commercial goods business. Google, Facebook and Twitter own our information and communications. The Walt Disney Company alone owns ABC, ESPN, FX, Hulu, the entire Marvel universe (including toys, movies, and theme park rides,) Star Wars, Pixar, and more. Friedman equates monopoly and government when he writes: “Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power.”
We all know that we need the government because without it we would have anarchy, but what is the right amount? It seems clear that as it currently stands, governmental intervention is too broad and needs to be scaled back. This is exemplified by a quote close to the end of the book: “state help kills self-help.” The more we ask the government to do for us, the less we do for ourselves (and the more we take for granted.) Let us not forget another old adage: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” With the implementation of Social Security, the government has decided to give us all fish. In order for our society to survive longer and prosper into the future, we the people must learn to fish for ourselves.
The central principle to this book is that free market capitalism is the surest way to achieve maximum freedom for the people. While this is true in theory, Friedman shows how this has become less and less an actual reality. Governmental policies and interventions have gradually eroded our economic freedoms and we have largely been blind to this truth because these freedoms are lost incrementally slowly over long periods of time and are thus hard to recognize.
The first major governmental move into the economy came with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. When it was first established (1913) the global economy was backed by a gold standard. However, within only a few short years, the First World War occurred and that standard was quickly abandoned. With these developments, the Fed was given the unfettered ability to print money and put it into circulation. As the quantity of dollars has increased, the relative value of each dollar has decreased. Unless your income has also gone up, this means that you are poorer.
Ever since then, the government has gotten its sticky fingers farther and farther into the pocketbooks of its citizens. This is evidenced by implementations such as tariffs, fair-trade laws, import quotas, production requirements, and trade union restrictions on employment. Things like registration, certification, and licensing requirements across a spectrum of viable potential occupations and job opportunities hinder people from pursuing them (Think about qualified doctors who emigrate to a new country and are unable to practice medicine because their new home-country requires renewed certification, something that can take years and lots of money.) Governmental approval of new taxes and hikes in existing taxes all to pay for publicly funded programs have often been endorsed with little to no forethought as to the potential negative ramifications (for example, if you set welfare benefits at a particular income level, does it incentivize people to remain just below that level so as to continue getting governmental monetary assistance, thus further motivating people to remain unmotivated towards improving their economic standing in society?) And when the time comes for unnecessary programs to be eliminated, how often are they kept well past their expiration date?
One of the more well-known programs that gets the most scrutiny is Social Security, and depending on the lens with which you view it, determines its importance to you. Friedman makes two such arguments. On the one hand, it seems to be an imposition on our financial freedom to make Social Security payments mandatory. If an individual prefers to live for today and not save for later in life, shouldn’t that be their prerogative? We can suggest that they don’t make such choices, but ultimately it should be up to them. It is wrong for the government to decide on our collective behalves, and to subsequently take money out of our pockets to enact the program. For the other side of this argument, Friedman writes: “The man who does not provide for his old age will become a public charge. Compelling him to buy an annuity is justified not for his own good, but for the good of the rest of us.” Through this lens, the government has a well founded argument for its implementation of Social Security, because its aim is to take care of society as a whole.
Friedman suggests, and I agree, that there are only two areas in which the government should impose itself economically. The first is in setting up the rules of the ‘game’ and regulating them. Even a free market economy can become victim to cheaters and swindlers, and the government should act as the enforcer of the rules. The second is to limit the monopolization of any one industry. If a single entity has control over a particular segment of the market, they can unfairly exercise control over it. Historical examples include Andrew Carnegie’s Steel Company and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. Today, monopolies are even more prevalent and predatory than ever. Wal-Mart, Amazon, and Target own our commercial goods business. Google, Facebook and Twitter own our information and communications. The Walt Disney Company alone owns ABC, ESPN, FX, Hulu, the entire Marvel universe (including toys, movies, and theme park rides,) Star Wars, Pixar, and more. Friedman equates monopoly and government when he writes: “Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power.”
We all know that we need the government because without it we would have anarchy, but what is the right amount? It seems clear that as it currently stands, governmental intervention is too broad and needs to be scaled back. This is exemplified by a quote close to the end of the book: “state help kills self-help.” The more we ask the government to do for us, the less we do for ourselves (and the more we take for granted.) Let us not forget another old adage: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” With the implementation of Social Security, the government has decided to give us all fish. In order for our society to survive longer and prosper into the future, we the people must learn to fish for ourselves.
Images in this review
Reviewed in the United States on June 3, 2018
Top reviews from other countries
Amazon Customer
Excelente livro para se entender liberdade
Reviewed in Brazil on September 20, 2020
Emir Catovic
Excellent book, little outdated
Reviewed in Australia on February 2, 2021
