i don't think he, bezos would say that, but first of all milton friedman made that comment at a timehen socialism had, you know, this sort of meaning that maybe we don't understand, you know, i don't even know what he means by that. quite frankly. if a corporation is delighting its customers, if a corporation is energizing its employees and creating a good return to its shareholders not maximum but a good one i would say that is a pretty good enterprise and i would say that is a successful one and i wouldn't want to have that chief executive being thrown out because some activist investor says i can bring someone who can really push this to the wall and double their earnings per share next quarter. i don't think that is a good way to run an economy. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> it is great to see you. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ >> in today's uncertain economy, bank foreclosures are alarmingly high and record numbers of americans have seen their life savings wiped out, but there is a way you can protect you and your families future. in the next half

the problem is in the five percent of the time when you have a real trade-off to make milton friedmanued in 1970 there is only one social responsibility of business to use its resources to use in activities designed to increase its profits, anything else he argues is unadulterated socialism. >> he believed that. >> and you want to know about -- for his economic principles, but let me just stay with this idea is also you might say by maximizing shareholder value is increasing the opportunities for the company and increase i -- increasing my ability to hire more people, to invest in more places to do things that bring or spread the wealth that i am creating. >> well, if that is what they were all doing then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. but if they are really making a lot of money, which they are, and they are using that money to buyback their shares, they are using that money to not sharing that with their employees who are not getting richer, so, therefore, not being able to bay more of their product, their employees are getting disengaged. i mean, imagine if i owned

ecology in which people have different priorities and see how it turns out. >> disagree with milton friedmanre are a number of ways we can measure the purpose and role possess a corporation in our economic and social life? >> yes. and the value of them, whether they are being successful, and i am not going to say that jeff bezos is running an unsuccessful company because he doesn't have a lot of profits, would milton freedom ofriedman a say that isa socialistic enterprise. >> i don't think he, bezos would say that, but first of all milton friedman made that comment at a time when socialism had, you know, this sort of meaning that maybe we don't understand, you know, i don't even know what he means by that. quite frankly. if a corporation is delighting its customers, if a corporation is energy apologizing its employees and creating a good return to its shareholders not fax mum but a good one i would say that is a pretty good enterprise and i would say that is a successful one and i wouldn't want to have those chief exec advertise, that chief executive, chief executive being thrown out become

it turns out that was a cornerstone of nixon's and famous socialist like milton friedman and hayek. there's a weird bipartisan history to this idea and if this does continue to play out along these trajectories we might revisit that. that's not our preferred solution. there's a wrinkle on that advocated by milton friedman among others that we would like a lot tighter which is a negative income tax which is let's encourage work and make sure people are still working and for every dollar they earn instead of paying 20 cents out of their taxes why don't we give them 20 cents and that 20 cents in that link urged him to keep working. these are some pretty heavy ideas. we think in the more far out future let's ship the conversation around what we are taxing and how and if we need to shifted in this direction. >> we are at the halfway point. >> are you still with us? >> this is the commonwealth club of california program and you are talking with erik brynjolfsson and andrew mcafee about their new look "the second machine", work progress and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. i

smith or faded by adam milton friedman that rich countries should lose their industry.hey certainly didn't lose theirs. >> in your book, you have a , ate from hugh e pierce long speech from 1932. the quote is, they have got a set of republican waiters on one side and senate democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the --, the legislative grub is altra spared -- is all prepared in the wall street kitchen. >> that is correct. you have to consider, we went through a horrendous financial meltdown. who is responsible depends on which party you are in. democrats will blame bush, the tax cuts, the fact that chris the securities and exchange commission were asleep at the switch. alan greenspan was asleep at the switch and was somehow surprised that all this happened. yes, bush was responsible. but when you parse the historical records, was he any more responsible than bill the act thatsigned actaled the glass-steagall of 1934, that kept investment and commercial banking separate? theigned that, he signed commodity futures modernization

we like milton friedman when it comes to this. let's encourage work, let's make sure that people are still working. for every dollar they earn, why don't we give them 20 cents and encourage them to keep working? we think in the system and the more far out future that the shifts of conversation, if we move too, we shift in this direction. >> okay, we are at the halfway point. and this is the commonwealth club of california program and we're talking with eric wilson and andrew mcafee called the second machine age. the time of voting technology. i am your moderator and you can hear commonwealth club programs on the radio and also online on our youtube channel. jumping off what you have just said with a couple of questions here, talking about basic guaranteed income and a response to this issue. and this is some of the talk that we had had about this. >> let me build upon what andrew was saying. you can do a lot to divide us. but the thing that we focus on is like an income tax credit and we get the feeling that the reason for that an

the income tax credit, the child of milton friedman and jerry ford, it was a great idea it worked enormously. but at the same time you have to raise the income. that's why the minimum wage has to be raised. let's not put it all on american taxpayers. costco already is, gap is. let's join in having some economic justice to our workers. >> woodruff: the two of you bring justice to this bring every friday. mark shields, david brooks, thank you. >> woodruff: finally tonight, as the winter olympics close out this weekend, we conclude with a broader look at the host country. at it's people and the contrast between the past couple of weeks and day-to-day life of ordinary russians. jeff is back with our conversation which he recorded earlier in the week. >> brown: gregory feifer first came to his interest in russia through a personally connection. his mother grew up there are in communism. he worked there as npr and other news organizations and is working with people along the way and eventually covered in the new book, russians, the people behind the power. welcome. >> thank you. >> brown: the star

it's the hold milton friedman three, whenever people spend other peoples money on other people, neitherkostner quality will ever matter. it's true. i would read other people spend other peoples money on themselves, at least the quality matters is not the cost, right? so i'm spending your money on something and as for me, i'm going to go buy the best suit i can find. really, at least where incentivizing quality but when you spend taxpayer money on other people, the quality doesn't matter either and i take it ridiculous decision-making like multiply by thousand the if you don't think there's waste and a budget, folks, it's absurd how much waste in the budget, literally absurd. and if i could add one more thing on that. on the other front because i mentioned the segmentation of federal law enforcement agencies but the other side i didn't get into too much. lobby front which is, blogging has been going on for eons. nothing new. but the source of all of our problems there is the tax code. if i can give you a tax break because you make a gray suit and i've never tax break to a great -- a gray

i suppose the fed could send him one and perhaps throw in a copy of milton friedman's capitalism and freedom, although i doubt it would do much good. there are clearly limits to what monetary policy can achieve, but much it can risk. thus, the roughly 3.5 trillion dollar question remains whether qe 3 will continue to taper slowly, whether it will end abruptly, or simply more into qe incontinuety. we look forward to hearing the chair's thoughts and intentions on the matter. as part of our centennial oversight project, qe will also cause our committee to thoroughly examine the federal reserve's unprecedented role in credit allocation. a focus distinct from its traditional role in monetary policy. should the fed pick distinct credit markets to support while ignoring others? this will -- this creates clearly winners and losers, and under the fed's current policies, seniors on fixed incomes are clearly losers. as we continue to witness the blurring of lines between fiscal and monetary policy. this committee will also examine the federal reserve's role as a financier and facilitator of our

milton friedman made it clear, the government doesn't have a tooth fairy working at the governnent anymorek at it logically. imagine we have farmer a and farmer b, the entire world and nothing else. if farmer b gets unemployment benefits, who do you think pays for it? farmer a. government spending, they cannot give resources away without taking them from the workers and producers and what that does, stuart, it gives the people that receive the surplus money an alternative way of getting income without working. and less income after tax for the people who produced the goods. obviously, the reason we have the single worst recovery in u.s. history is because of the stimulus package not in spite of it. stuart: all right. >> and they just keep going on and on and on and it's just nonsense, drivel. stuart: drivel, a-- >> it is drivel, drivel. stuart: i have to get you on the first quarter of 2014, i think it's going to be pretty bad because of this dreadful weather. i want you to it look at the second quarter. are we all going to get-- after cabin fever are we going to run out there and start bu

it is milton friedman period you spend other people's money cost or quality does not matter. it is true rather than spend the money on themselves alleys the quality matters. if you're spending your money it is the best i can find. that is how you get that multiplied by thousands. if you don't think there is waste in the budget it is absurd. >> one more thing, on the other front lobby front that has bang going on for elands , -- aeons but it is with the tax code if i could give you a tax break because you make great suits but not give it to the blue suit company i give you a competitive a vintage in the field you don't have. you pay be back to donate to icahn paid to keep be empowered to realize the economic distortion will decline through the economy times thousands and thousands over decades? think about how the value misjudgments were made because of pricing product is wrong because i could give you a tax break. it is no small item. why do you think the left fights so viciously against the flat tax because it is flat? no. because there is no power with yes. of everything is

i suppose the fed could send him one and perhaps throw in a copy of milton friedman's capitalism and freedom, although i doubt it would do much good. there are clearly limits to what monetary policy can achieve, but much it can risk. thus, the roughly 3.5 trillion dollar question remains whether qe 3 will continue to taper slowly, whether it will end abruptly, or simply more into qe incontinuety. we look forward to hearing the chair's thoughts and intentions on the matter. as part of our centennial oversight project, qe will also cause our committee to thoroughly examine the federal reserve's unprecedented role in credit allocation. a focus distinct from its traditional role in monetary policy. should the fed pick distinct credit markets to support while ignoring others? this will -- this creates clearly winners and losers, and under the fed's current policies, seniors on fixed incomes are clearly losers. as we continue to witness the blurring of lines between fiscal and monetary policy. this committee will also examine the federal reserve's role as a financier and facilitator of our