Comments (32)

• steve

  if only the goverment didn't have it's head in the sand
  

  Published: January 12, 2009 10:18 AM

• CA

  I heard Mises debated Milton and eventually stormed off calling him a socialist.

  Published: January 12, 2009 10:27 AM

• Robert C. Green II

  That goes to show you the character of Milton Friedman and the power of ideas!

  Published: January 12, 2009 10:33 AM

• Eido Cohen

  Mr. Melamed's genuine affection for his memory of Milton Friedman has altered his perception of reality. Even though Friedman used TANSTAAFL on many occasions, and yes he did publish "There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch" in 1975, he DID NOT invent the phrase.

  This phrase was first put in print in 1949, in Pierre Dos Utt's monograph, "TANSTAAFL: a plan for a new economic world order". It then entered popular culture in 1966 through Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

  Published: January 12, 2009 11:17 AM

• Eido Cohen

  and another brief comment... Mr. Melamed's name comes from Hebrew, whereby מלמד (Melamed) means "teacher". Shame on him for getting the history wrong in this case.

  Published: January 12, 2009 11:20 AM

• olmedo

  Friedman comes around in the popular press as practicaly "the inventor of free market" economics.

  
  We austrian know that this is far from the truth. Mises built a vastly more complete and coherent argument for free market economics long before him. Also, Friedman knew him well.

  
  Did he ever quoted Mises in any of his main work?

  
  To tell you the truth, I hate this guy, I think his half baked ideas for freedom are pretty much responsilble for the mess we are in and where freedom will loose bigtime.

  
  olmedo
  

  Published: January 12, 2009 11:50 AM

• Bruce Koerber

  It is good to finally know who was the originator of 'No such thing as a free lunch.'

  Yeah, philosophers and contributors to economic thought for centuries were puzzled by this. They were so helpless, thinking that everything was free, until Milton Friedman made this earth-shaking pronouncement!

  Now, thanks to Friedman we can adopt the Monetarist view that the money supply should always be growing at the rate determined by the empirical eggheads! Sounds like a free lunch program for a select few to me!

  Hypocrisy and ego-driven interpretation and ego-driven interventionism all bundled up together in the persona of a Nobel Laureate!

  Published: January 12, 2009 12:43 PM

• eric lansing

  Milton Friedman Unraveled by Rothbard:

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html

  Published: January 12, 2009 12:48 PM

• Russell

  OK...Rothbard's article is eyeopening for a Friedmanite like myself. But there's no discounting the positive effects that Milton Friedman had with his constant promotion of free markets. If nothing else, because of his popularity many many more were eventually exposed to Mises and his followers. Personally, I still have great admiration for Friedman. He may not have been right all the time, but he was right most of the time, and he was a tireless advocate for free markets everywhere.

  Published: January 12, 2009 3:22 PM

• (8?»

  Russell, as far as I can tell, Friedman never once promoted a truly free market, only the incoherent form relying on constant inflation (which is a perverse enough condition to totally undermine the idea of freedom).

  Then there is the "freedom of choice" sponsored by Friedman known as school vouchers. Yet another "solution" touted as freedom.

  IMO, Friedman was just another con-man packaging up an incoherent version of the free-market as a straw-man to be defeated by the Marxists. Which is exactly how Greenspan is being used today. Look at the MSM. It isn't his currency destruction that is to blame for today's mess, but his past affiliation with free-market principles.

  These men are fakes, designed to distract the apathetic from coherent ideologies of freedom, while keeping them well supplied with asinine rebuttals of the necessity of our enslavement.

  Published: January 12, 2009 4:11 PM

• Inquisitor

  I think even Mises would grow impatient at the reluctance of some to term their position what it actually is... central banking socialism (amongst other socialisms Friedman espoused.)

  Published: January 12, 2009 4:46 PM

• Fephisto

  Oh come on guys. O.k., he's not perfect, but he's a heckuva lot closed than the current Krugman & Co. clan.

  Published: January 12, 2009 5:50 PM

• J Korgan

  Why all the hate for Friedman? What is with this Randian-esque orthodoxy? If you aren't with us exactly on every point, you're an enemy? Is that the thinking? For all his faults, Friedman did a lot to popularize capitalism. Do I agree with everything he said? No, but it doesn't automatically disqualify anything he ever did.

  Getting back to the video-- Friedman is right on how ideas to spread. If they are good ideas, people copy them. Consider this very website, where pretty much every electronic file here can be copied/reviewed for free. How many here would accept a free market classical liberal or even a "voluntary" society if not for some of the resources on this site?

  Published: January 12, 2009 6:13 PM

• olmedo

  as for popularizing freedom Friedman only popularized a "toxic" form of freedom.

  
  in "micro" terms he was alright the only thing he didn't tell was that whatever freedom to choose you gained at a "micro" level you lost at a "macro" level.

  
  no the oligarchy didn't control you by the legislative no they did it thru the central bank, which is worse.

  
  as for eliminating the draft, he just made it easier for politicians to declare war as now , for them , it was only a "budgetary" problem not a political problem as it was when they were forced to send their own sons to war.

  
  for me Friedman was prototype of a very cunning "intellectual bodyguard" for power. and cunning he was

  
  olmedo

  Published: January 12, 2009 6:45 PM

• Speedmaster

  Great post. Dr. Friedman was a brilliant and wonderful man.

  Published: January 12, 2009 7:01 PM

• Bruce Koerber

  Empiricism is an erroneous economic methodology and Milton Friedman adhered to empiricism which means that his conclusions were merely his ego-driven interpretations. That he mimicked the logic that ultimately originated from subjectivism does not mean that he is a noteworthy economist in the true sense.

  He failed to acknowledge the true source of the economic reality which means that he either did not know where it came from or he did not care. Being ignorant or being ego-driven are not the qualities of 'a brilliant and wonderful man.'

  Milton Friedman was a notable empiricist and interpreter of economic data. That is the extent of his distinction.

  Published: January 12, 2009 7:29 PM

• Lucas M. Engelhardt

  I'm torn about Friedman. I agree with him here - ultimately, the important thing about good ideas is that they spread, not that someone in particular get credit for them.

  I'm also indebted to him. His book is what pushed be from being a conservative Republican to being a libertarian (it took Hoppe to push me to anarchocapitalism).

  On the other hand, his economic methodology was infected with logical positivism, and he was not consistent in his application of the principles of liberty.

  Published: January 12, 2009 10:13 PM

• Critical Observer

  It is boards like this that make realize how far away any of the libertarian-esque ideas of the Mises institute are from ever becoming reality. This Friedman hating is just the tip of the iceberg.

  Successful movements are expansive and are able to understand various degrees of "friends" and "enemies" in the grander scheme of coalition formation. They do not have to agree or compromise their principles but merely agree with a broader base on the overall direction in which to further their policies. However, after almost a year of daily browsing the Mises institute, it seems the common practice here towards even the mildest disagreement is to throw a tantrum like an irate autistic child. There is a complete disproportionality of rage towards even mild dissent. This, to me, is a real shame, because with a more welcoming attitude towards the treatment of outsiders, Austrian economics could have an actual influence in American society.

  I seriously fear that the Austrian school and its followers would rather be right than effective. It seems to be a school of thought seeking martyrdom.

  To those who would condemn Friedman as an advocate for "half-baked" or "toxic" ideas for freedom, I would ask you to name one economist who has had more overall influence in popularizing the general idea of freedom of choice to the layman (maybe Hayek?). Friedman believed in (and advocated for) drug legalization, the decentralization of the school system from state control, the self-organizing property of markets and laissez-faire market philosophy, the abolition of about every governmental department except the military, the elimination of almost all government regulation, etc. etc. etc. Furthermore, he explained these (still!) very unorthodox views with a smile on his face and a calm voice. Friedman provided a popular intellectual argument for the empowerment of the individual in contrast to the worship of the state that was so present at the time he spoke. Given his intellectual heritage as a Keynesian, his departure from that general philosophy shows a great deal of open-mindedness--much more than I see with the vast majority of academicians when confronted to challenges to their initial belief system. Perhaps in a different age, Milton Friedman would have been also completely in agreement with the Austrian school--this is not a far stretch as his son, David D. Friedman who is also an economist, advocates an anarcho-capitalist view.

  Compared to the current ideological spectrum, Milton Friedman's views are so close to most of those in the Mises institute as to be indistinguishable by the general public. As a follower of the Austrian school and philosophy and a regular financial backer of the cause, the fiery absolutism found in these forums saddens me. I sincerely hope that the objectivists and Rothbardians here stop their jealous step-sisterisms against Milton Friedman and learn how to be civil. Otherwise, they can enjoy the continued purification of their ideology and the ever-diminishing number of followers necessary to facilitate that.

  Published: January 12, 2009 10:57 PM

• Russell

  I think Critical Observer's made a very good point. Those of you who can't stand Friedman, what in the world do you think of guys like Krugman? If you hate Friedman...do you double hate Krugman?

  Have you guys really read Friedman's books? How can you possibly read Capitalism and Freedom or Free to Choose (or see the video series) and call him a fake who never really touted free markets? Show me all the places in those books where he's completely off base and worthy of a freedom loving person's hatred.

  Recently I read something from Rothbard where he disagreed with Mises on a particular point. Should we banish him as a fake too?

  Published: January 12, 2009 11:45 PM

• Félix

  Actually, I'm quite fond of Friedman, his heart was in the right place and it is very clear that he came a lot closer to hard money, no-compromise positions.... but he did do a lot of harm. He consciously took the risk of compromise, of working through the system and ended up being used...

  Published: January 13, 2009 12:34 AM

• Patrick

  Critical observer:

  "I seriously fear that the Austrian school and its followers would rather be right than effective. "

  
  I strive for that. What's there to gain if one is effective but wrong?

  Published: January 13, 2009 1:31 AM

• Critical Observer

  Patrick:

  My point is that rightness and effectiveness are not mutually exclusive.

  However, there is a very different mindset between those responsible reformers and the adolescent protest-culture absolutists who criticize them at every turn. The former see value in the results of their actions. The latter enjoy a moral high ground that gives them a nice fuzzy feeling that helps them sleep at night, despite still being oppressed by the systems they are supposedly against.

  For a trivial example, consider taxes. If there was currently a tax rate of 70%, a so-called "moderate" might suggest the half-way point of 35%. However, a person who, in the context of those obscene rates, voiced a 35% tax on this forum would be labelled a "sell-out", failing to stick to a "no-compromise" position of no taxes. Someone would probably come along and say that they were choosing the "lesser of two evils" instead of the obvious "lesser of two goods." As the old adage goes, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.

  From what I can see in the forums at the Mises institute (curiously not so much from the actual submitters), there is an irrational fear here of pursuing any policy which is less than perfect. In fact, many people seem to relish in their disagreeableness toward anything hinting at moderation.

  There seems to be a culture here of continual narrowing of what is "acceptable" economic policy. And with the continual reducing of possible policy avenues, I see a lot of forum submitters who will only be happy when society's laws match perfectly their own worldview. This orthodoxy is not only unnecessarily intolerant, but intellectually immature and harmful to the cause.

  My point, if not sufficiently clear in my earlier post, is that all of this purist criticizing of Milton Friedman, is complete intellectual masturbation. It is completely stupid. Society is nowhere remotely close to widespread acceptance of the Austrian or Friedman worldview, it would be foolish to make enemies at this point. If Austrians cannot fraternize with freedom-minded individuals like Milton Friedman without engaging in childish name calling, this movement is surely doomed.

  Feel free to disagree! Disagreement is healthy--disagreement is good. But if Austrians (and their libertarian allies in general) continue to make everything a holy war and cannot be both amenable to persons yet critical of their ideas, they will alienate everyone from their cause.

  Published: January 13, 2009 2:14 AM

• Pravin

  The layperson associates free market ideas with Friedman -and he didnt really advocate true free markets.He still wanted a managed economy -except the Fed was choice of weapon to indulge in this fantasy as against the govt in power. But Austrians have to ask "whats the difference"! Like Hayek said. Mr Friedman needs to decide if he wants planning or not. Friedman must have been intellectually torn .

  When G'span and Friedman are the public faces of free markets, its time to stand up for honesty. The Austrian criticism is not intellectual masturbation as somebody alleged. It strikes at the core of the dishonesty of Friedmanite thinking.

  Published: January 13, 2009 4:15 AM

• Critical Observer

  Pravin:

  The Austrian criticism against Friedman is not intellectual masturbation--it is an ideological argument against Friedman's ideology. What I intimated was that the crude insults towards Friedman and the implications that he was somehow an enemy of freedom are indeed intellectual masturbation, because they are not intended to elucidate an argument but create a sharp division, as if Friedman was this terrible power-monger lording over free peoples everywhere. Read some of the comments in the above thread and then wonder what a proportionate emotional response would be to those economists who truly *are* hostile to freedom.

  Also, you mention Hayek as if somehow his criticism places Friedman worlds apart. This is laughable. Hayek was almost certainly more politically authoritarian than Friedman, thus giving rise to what you might call political "planning". Rothbard had lots to criticize Hayek for as well and relayed whisperings among the Austrian community that the Nobel society waited to let Mises die to avoid giving him the prize, instead awarding it to Hayek because of his tendency toward authoritarianism, thus eliminating the need to give it to the more "pure" Mises.

  My overriding pet peeve is this: if people like Ropke and Hayek (both Austrians) are these champions of freedom, why isn't Friedman considered roughly on par with them? He was undoubtedly for much smaller political government than the both of them, and in the case of Ropke, for less economic management. Ropke probably should be classified more as a type of distributionist-lite than a capitalist.

  Are we to believe that all freedom revolves around economics and that Ropke and Hayek's political philosophies should be simply ignored? And if we are to take that purist view, that only an objectivist-Misesian-Rothbardian intersection of views is equivalent with "freedom," then seriously, no wonder so many people are hostile to the institution of Austrian economics. This stance colorizes everything in a moral argument as opposed to an intellectual disagreement.

  I would recommend the following Reason interview as it is Friedman's own words regarding his political philosophy, as well as his interactions with the Austrians.
  http://www.reason.com/news/show/29691.html

  Probably the most telling quote in the whole thing is this:

  Friedman: The difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction. So while I'd like to abolish the Fed, I've written many pages on how the Fed, if it does exist, should be run.

  Are we to believe that because Friedman wished to take small steps toward an eventual goal, that somehow he was inimical to freedom? And if Friedman was not worth being on amicable terms with, who the hell is? Seriously. I am not saying that there should not be intellectual disagreement, merely that if the Austrian school can't seem to work with people they *slightly* disagree with for shared goals, then honestly, maybe they are too dogmatic, unfree, hostile to practical civic participation, and undeserving of my continued participation or support.
  

  Published: January 13, 2009 5:37 AM

• jeffrey

  There's never a bad time for a friedman debate but the actual reason I posted this has nothing to do with Friedman's economics ideas. I was drawing attention to his informal views on "intellectual property." Rather than restrict ideas and inhibit information flow, he saw his job to inspire imitation as widely as possible. This is a great attitude, and one that runs contrary to the rationale of patent and copyright.

  Published: January 13, 2009 6:05 AM

• olmedo

  as a popularizer, Friedman had "brilliant" opinions on every type of subject from collecting the trash to the draft.

  In the majority of them I can agree on. However, in his day job Friedman was not a "popularizer" but an academician of a tendency called "monetarists".

  
  And, somehow, just somehow, he was liberalizing and demonopolizing almost everything except "money". He usually calmed the subject by saying that " it wasn't politically practical" to say it.

  Well, this is fine except when you consider that will all his "brilliance" left the subject of "capital structure" completely out of the picture. Somehow, capital and its structure didn't play for Friedman in the economy. For me, this is hiscapital sin!!!!!

  
  You cannot possibly talk about economics without talking about capital an its structure. And in the case of Friedman, this is highly suspect.

  Friedman, unlike Greenspan, was lucky to die just before this whole monetary garbage piling up thru the last 38 years will come crashing down. I am sure, he will come out with a brilliant excuse for all this but, mr friedman, you are not an economist if you don't talk about the capital structure. And this all wil backfire on freedom.

  
  If you want to expand about this subject, read a really brilliant economist, Roger Garrison.

  Published: January 13, 2009 8:24 AM

• The Natural Lawyer

  Money is the foundation of any market economy, and the nature of the former determines the nature of the latter. Centrally planned money resting on government fiat corresponds to a centrally planned market resting on government force. Free money resting on the voluntary assent of money users corresponds to a free market. It is not absolutism to criticize Friedman as not being a champion of free markets. As a monetarist, he gives the state control over money, market, economy and, ultimately, society. Friedman would leave you free to choose, for sure, but only within the boundaries he and the state would set for you. It is the freedom that parents give their children to play as they like in the confines of their room. Perhaps the children would like some fresh air!

  Published: January 13, 2009 10:23 AM

• Bruce Koerber

  I think this statement answers the question of why Friedman has been so widely appreciated: 'Rather than restrict ideas and inhibit information flow, he saw his job to inspire imitation as widely as possible.' To his credit he did it relatively better than some others.

  That is not the same as being an economist in the true sense - a subjectivist. He was an empiricist not an economist. Until this distinction is clear to us and to the masses the charlatans will impose their ego-driven intervention and their ego-driven interpretation on all those under the influence of their arbitrary power.

  It is that arbitrary power by the well connected empiricists that keeps most of the people from 'imitating' the true statesman, Ron Paul. I venture to guess that Friedman would not be trying to imitate Ron Paul nor encouraging others to 'imitate' him either. Let's call it selective imitation!

  Published: January 13, 2009 12:04 PM

• Raja

  Critical Observer - "Are we to believe that because Friedman wished to take small steps toward an eventual goal, that somehow he was inimical to freedom?"

  The problem is that small steps in the right direction will necessarily backfire. When a "free market" reform is introduced, the surrounding government regulations will work to create some new problem that the myopic masses will confuse as a failure of the free market policy. Just look at the news today. By equating monetarism with free markets, Friedman has indeed done more damage to our cause than good.

  Besides, I don't really think he shares our same cause, as evidenced by statements like this:

  Friedman - "So while I'd like to abolish the Fed, I've written many pages on how the Fed, if it does exist, should be run."

  This only proves that he doesn't understand economics. I am not sure how well read you are on Austrian capital theory, but you should treat anyone who makes this claim with great suspicion. This betrays not a *slight* difference, but rather a *fundamental* difference. Not to mention that his economic methodology is positivist.

  "then honestly, maybe they are too dogmatic, unfree, hostile to practical civic participation, and undeserving of my continued participation or support."

  That is your choice, but keep in mind that the only way we will ever achieve a free society is to continuously beat into peoples heads, not that government is inefficient, but rather that it is evil. People will suffer inefficiency and corruption if they believe it is the moral solution. Morality rules the world. The statists, socialists, and authoritarians of all stripes already know this, and have used it throughout history. You are fighting a losing battle if you don't address the morality of the state without compromise.

  Published: January 13, 2009 2:40 PM

• Beta Hater

  A few other posts have discussed the dangers of Friedman's methodology, but I think it is crucial to elaborate on this point.

  Empiricism is the methodology of socialism; empiricism is the methodology of state. Milton Friedman was an important advocate of empiricism. Friedman's faith in economic freedom was only hypothetical. In other words, Friedman's faith in economic freedom was subject to falsification.

  For example, will a minimum wage of 10 million dollars per hour lead to mass unemployment? The empiricists say that we don't know and only experience can provide the answer. This opens the door to all kinds of dangerous socialist policies. Furthermore, the empiricist will not accept a falsifying experience as proof that some hypothesis is incorrect. So if a minimum wage of 10 million dollars did lead to mass unemployment, the empiricist could blame the outcome on some other uncontrolled variable. Thus, empiricism enables the socialist to implement a socialist policy indefinitely.

  Please see chapter 6 of Hoppe's "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" or listen to his lecture for a self-referential refutation of empiricism: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2008/4_Hoppe.mp3

  Published: January 13, 2009 6:13 PM

• suraj churaman

  I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ECONOMY IS THAT EVERYONE IN THE BUSINESS .THERE'S NOT ONE OF THEM MENTION A PRAYER OR GAVE THANKS TO THE LORD OUR GOD BEFORE THE RING THE BELL ON WALL STREET .ALL THE SHOW SOME POPULAR PEOPLE , WE ALL NEEDED JESUS ,HE'S WAY AND THE LIGHT FOR EVERYTHING WE DO, AMERICAN HAVE SOMETHING NO OTHER NATION HAVE ''IN GOD WE TRUST'' NOW NO ONE LIVE U TO IT.WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR BELOVED AMERICA WE BECOME AND THINK FOR OURSELF AND FORGET OUR AMERICA IS BUILT IN GOD WE TRUST . I WANTED TO ASK THOSE SCUM BAGG WHERE IS THE TRUST ,

  Published: January 31, 2009 11:33 AM

• Gernot Hassenpflug

  Regarding "small steps in the right direction", this appears to be the same issue every entrepreneur faces: he has a vision of what he wishes to achieve, and yet has to deal with the here and now daily in order to make ends meet. Each decision is influenced both by the vision and current necessity, and with time it may be possible to come closer to the vision, or not, depending on how well decisions are made, and how much influence can be had on those factors determining the current situation at every point in time.

  How would this approach differ from one taken by any practical economist wishing to change a system? Putting up with many evils on the way to removing them is unavoidable, I would think. Education, I venture, is the long but ultimately most stable method of change...

  Published: March 28, 2009 10:34 AM