Milton Friedman interviewed

friedman.jpgMilton Friedman is the most influential economist of the past half-century and, at the age of 92, is still as sharp as a tack (here are previous posts on Mr. Friedman). Craig Newmark passes along this recent interview of Mr. Friedman, which includes the following pearls of wisdom:
On Social Security:

Asked why, if Social Security is so terrible, it is the most popular government program in American history, Friedman replied, “Well, because why does a Ponzi game work? It’s easy to understand why it’s popular. So far, on the average, retirees have gotten more out of the system than they put into it. ”
What about the fact that Social Security has reduced poverty among the elderly?
“Well,” he replied, “what it has done is transfer a lot of income from the young to the old. It is certainly true it has made the old people of the United States the best treated old people in the world.”
But why is that a bad thing? “Oh,” Friedman replied. “It’s not a bad thing for them, but what about the young?”

On rent controls and his influence in political debates:

When [Mr. Friedman] moved to San Francisco in the 1970s, the city was debating rent control, he recalled. So he wrote a letter to The Chronicle saying, “Anybody who has examined the evidence about the effects of rent control, and still votes for it, is either a knave or a fool.”
What happened? “They immediately passed it,” he laughed.

On a related note, in this post, John Hamilton compiles his favorite Friedman quotes from Mr. Friedman’s famous book, Free to Choose, which includes my favorite:

“[A] private firm that makes a serious blunder may go out of business. A government agency is likely to get a bigger budget.”

The Enron Airline?

airliner.jpgA sure sign that a discussion on a particular subject has deteriorated to an unrecoverable level is a participant’s allegation that the other side’s position defends Nazism in some respect. With regard to discussions about business, it’s quickly becoming evident that such discussions have degenerated into uselessness when one participant accuses the other side’s position of defending Enron.
This NY Times article reports on a Congressional hearing yesterday in which Delta Air Lines Chief Executive Gerald Grinstein, Northwest Airlines President and Chief Executive Officer Douglas Steenland, and UAL Chairman, President and CEO Glenn Tilton testified in favor of proposed legislation that would allow airlines to freeze pension plans and extend their current obligations over 25 years. Last month, United Airlines obtained Bankruptcy Court approval to shift its employee-pension plans — including their nearly $10 billion shortfall — on to the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
In response to the airline executives’ rather reasonable comments in support of common-sense legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (Rep. Iowa) called United Airlines a “catastrophe” and compared United Airlines to Enron Corp., saying the carrier used “illusory investment gains” to “hide and disguise” the true financial condition of its pension plans. “Unlike Enron, however,” concluded Sen. Grassley. “Everything United did was perfectly legal.”
Well, playing the Enron card may make for a good sound bite, but it’s a sure sign that Mr. Grassley wants to avoid addressing what’s really troubling the airline industry — i.e., Big Labor supported by compliant politicians. Let’s take United as a case in point. At a time when unions owned over 50% of the company, controlled three board seats, and effectively hired and fired the company’s CEO, the unions decided to increase their retirement compensation by approving unfundable pension obligations while, at the same time, extracting maximum current wage benefits that made United uncompetitive from an operations standpoint. Thus, United’s owner-employees effectively looted the company with high current compensation benefits while, at the same time, effectively insuring that they would also ultimately loot the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which they knew would be the guarantor of at least a substantial portion of United’s unfundable pension obligations.
Frankly, even the Enron sharpies didn’t think of such a scheme.

The Lord of Regulation comments on the Anderson decision

Spitzer15.jpgIn an interview yesterday with Wall Street Journal columnist Alan Murray, New York AG (“Attorney General” or “Aspiring Governor,” take your pick) Eliot Spitzer observed that he agreed with the recent Supreme Court decision in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States and that a criminal indictment of a company often is the wrong way to proceed in an investigation because of the risk of destroying the company. Comparing his investigations to those of the heavy-handed Enron Task Force, Mr. Spitzer made the following comment:

“I’ve always said Andersen was an improper indictment, because it wasn’t proportionate. We use a scalpel, not a meat ax.”

If what Mr. Spitzer is using on American International Group Inc. is a scalpel, then he must own one helluva meat ax.
Meanwhile, this NY Times article reports that Mr. Spitzer’s immunity deal with former AIG executive Joseph Umansky was not coordinated with other ongoing investigations into AIG and effectively removed Mr. Umansky as a realistic target of those investigations.