Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 11/19/2006 10:52:38 AM PST by RWR8189
IF John Maynard Keynes was the most influential economist of the first half of the 20th century, then Milton Friedman was the most influential economist of the second half.
Not so long ago, we were all Keynesians. (“I am a Keynesian,” Richard Nixon famously said in 1971.) Equally, any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites. Mr. Friedman, who died last week at 94, never held elected office but he has had more influence on economic policy as it is practiced around the world today than any other modern figure.
I grew up in a family of progressive economists, and Milton Friedman was a devil figure. But over time, as I studied economics myself and as the world evolved, I came to have grudging respect and then great admiration for him and for his ideas. No contemporary economist anywhere on the political spectrum combined Mr. Friedman’s commitment to clarity of thought and argument, to scientifically examining evidence and to identifying policies that will make societies function better.
Mr. Friedman is perhaps best known for his views on money and monetary policy. Fierce debates continue on how the Federal Reserve and other central banks should set monetary policy. But the debates take place within the context of nearly total agreement on some basics: Monetary policy can shape an economy more than budgetary policy can; extended high inflation will not lead to prosperity and can lead to lower living standards; policy makers cannot fine-tune their economies as they fluctuate.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
no wonder Harvard fired him
" No contemporary economist anywhere on the political spectrum combined Mr. Friedman’s commitment to clarity of thought and argument, to scientifically examining evidence and to identifying policies that will make societies function better. "
bump
Yes, advocating the importance of allowing free markets to operate made Milton Friedman . . . a devil figure. Those very same "progressive economists" who called Dr. Friedman a devil figure called Barry Goldwater a racist and a Nazi and worse.
Dr. Friedman thinking gave too little weight to considerations of social justice and . . . collective action. You got that right.
Thanks Dr. Friedman! Just Thanks....
I don't think that he gave too little weight to it as much as he thought a rising tide lifts all boats. He believed the free market was able to solve all problems much better than a bunch of bureaucrats.
Finally, while many may not know it, Friedman made notable contributions in the area of applied statistics and the nonparametric Friedman Test was his brainchild.
He also played an important role in Reagan's economic policies.
It was Friedman who in 1962, with the publication of "Capitalism and Freedom," first proposed the abolition of Social Security, not because it was going bankrupt, but because he considered it immoral.
Friedman calls Social Security, created by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, a Ponzi game.
Charles Ponzi was the 1920s Boston swindler who collected money from "investors" to whom he paid out large "profits" from the proceeds of later investors. The scheme inevitably collapses when there are not enough new entrants to pay earlier ones.
That Social Security operates on a similar basis is not really in dispute.
The biggest misconception about the program, he argues, is that workers believe it works like insurance, with the government depositing taxes in a trust fund.
"I've always thought it disgraceful that the government should be essentially lying about what it was doing," he said.
He calls himself an innate optimist, despite the unpopularity of many of his ideas.
When he 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.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/05/ING9QD1E5Q1.DTL&sn=156&sc=587
bookmark
> To my mind, his thinking gave too little weight to considerations of social justice <
A distressingly shallow statement from an otherwise near-profound essay.
Friedman thought long and hard about social justice -- just as much as any of his leftwing adversaries, and clearly a lot more than many of them ever would be capable of doing.
But he also realized that government programs generally have imperfections that are fully as serious as the imperfections found in free markets -- if not more serious.
Friedman therefore rejected the left's "default" position that social justice normally is best served by government intervention. And he argued persuasively that in any specific case, the greater "social justice" is almost always going to be found in a market-based solution, rather than in a government solution.
[But on the other hand, it's so refreshing to see Summers partially recant a doctrinaire "government über alles" philosophy that one shouldn't be overly critical!]
"There are other areas like vouchers for school choice, drug legalization and the abolition of certification requirements for lawyers, doctors and other professionals where Mr. Friedman has not yet and may never carry the day. But even in these areas, the climate of opinion and the nature of policy have shifted because of his powerful arguments."
----
These will carry the day, just a matter of when... :)
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
(any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites.)
That was the most dishonest statement of the whole article. Democrats are almost unanimously still Keyesians, wedded to the faith that big government (the fiscal lever) makes people's lives better (if they are in charge of course).
Isn’t the author the one run out of Harvard by the "masses?"
Yet he praises "social justice" and "collective" will.
I bet he’d really get off if he’d been forced to tour the campus on a flatbed truck, flanked by two armed campus policemen forcibly holding his head down in shame.
I have to agree about Capitalism and Freedom. That was the best damned book I have ever read...in fact I also bought a five-cassette audio version and will listen to it from time to time, picking up new insights from it.If more people were exposed to this book, the world, and the people who occupy it, would be a much better and more tolerant, cooperative place.
Many freedom-loving people are grieving -- along with Rose -- the loss of its modern-day, most influential advocate. Rest in peace, Dr. Friedman. ~ Nov 16, 2006 9:56:25 PM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.