My reaction to the first two videos has basically been covered by @ETpro and @mammal. I never really thought about the corporate tax structure, but it does seem like there are some double-taxation aspects of it that I wasn’t thinking about.
However, the assumption underlying the basic argument (of course, I’ll assume that this was an overview of his points on the issue, and therefore the glaring omissions were necessary) is that the funds would end up making it, in any significant way, into the wages of employees or create savings for consumers. They very well might – and this does start an argument that the funds if left in the hands of the corporation would be a more efficient use.
But simply because wages are reduced or prices are increased does not mean that taxation of corporate earnings at some level would not create greater public benefit – but this is more of a government budget and spending discussion. So, we can’t rest on Friedman’s statements as the end.
As to the robber baron discussion – I was fairly disgusted at the omissions in this case. Friedman, instead of discussing the perhaps unknown implications of certain policies as undermining one myth (a good approach) creates what seems like a wholly knew side myth – economic prosperity was due to free market principles rather than the factors @mammal points out…in addition to weaving into the story that information was freely available from the allegedly oppressed on one side of the ocean to the poor and hopeful on the other side (arguing that “well, if they were really oppressing the workers…then new workers would have stopped coming over” is a slight of hand that is simply foul).
The discussion about charity is perhaps the least objectionable – but there are still too many underlying assumptions at this point to warrant accepting anything stated. Yes, there were profound charitable acts – but of course you would expect this during a period of unprecedented growth. The problem underlying Friedman’s examples of the charity in the period is that it’s used as a counter to arguments that public welfare can’t be handled by private industry. We know that, indeed, some of it would be…but we don’t know (at least with the information here – I make no assertions about the final conclusion) whether private industry would react quickly enough and create enough efficiencies to consistently maintain welfare programs at the level we would require. The benefit of a government-based program on these fronts (and note, I don’t think we’ve got a good one yet) is that it is better (if not completely or even really at this point) shielded from market influences. Private industry would, in the interest of profitable ventures, make private charitable ventures to the point it stopped being profitable in some way. Therefore, the influence is not external (as it should be) but internal – as much as large corporations can greatly benefit the public good, they will only do so to the extent that it serves their interests, arguably. Their shareholders’ interests will come first.
The last couple of videos – well, I feel like they’re more propaganda than argument really.