What does everyone think of Milton Friedman?

[I Don't Vote]

First of all, I'm not riding his dick or anything, but I do think that he has done a lot of good in certain areas.

You see a lot of these interviews and lectures on youtube where he answers questions about the role of government and I think he is a master at that. He explains the welfare state beautifully, even in the face of some very leftist opponents.

However, as I've learned from the Mises Institute, he is a socialist when it comes to monetary issues.

But.....I as much as I agree with them, I've never seen an interview or documentary where he expresses his opinion on this issue.

So I'm not sure how much we should hate on him, but I think he does receive an undeserved amount of hate on this issue.

Any thoughts?

[Carson]

I think he had a gift for explaining economics. It seems to me that then many went on to abuse the concepts he taught. Even he himself.

[Sola_Fide]

One of my poly sci professors was obsessed with Friedman. I've read a couple of his books. Free To Choose is a good primer on what a libertarian society would look like.

The Chicago school is wrong on monetary issues though, and that is a big problem, since sound money is the starting point for prosperity and limited government in the first place.

[I Don't Vote]

I think he had a gift for explaining economics.

I don't think there should be any argument against that. He has mastered that art from every angle.

That said, there was an instance where a guy threw a pie in his face in public, when the man was in his 80s or 90s. How disrespectful of that is the left?

[Agorism]

His claim to fame is debunking the Phillips curve, which was a resounding success. I read one of his books that stressed micro, and I didn't like it as it stressed utilitarian solutions, which I don't support.

[outspoken]

I often contemplate my thoughts on Friedman. He had tremendous insight into consumerism and how it relates to economics, namely pricing. He also had a keen sense of human nature and how it perceives money. All that said, I still wonder why he has so much unfaith in human beings and yet remained faithful that a central bank run by human beings even if not in the form of a non-govt shaddy entity such as the Fed could ever be a beneficial thing for humanity.

[awake]

Rothbard pegs him pretty good. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html)

He was for full statist control of the money supply and inflation at prescribed levels of 4 - 5 percent.

[Sola_Fide]

Rothbard pegs him pretty good. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html)

That was really good. Thanks.

[NewRightLibertarian]

He is a sickening disaster capitalist! He and other libertarians are clearly responsible for all the ills in the world right now ;)

[low preference guy]

he is wrong on a very fundamental issue (monetary policiy). so he is just someone with libertarian leanings who speaks well.

[Jack Bauer]

He is a sickening disaster capitalist! He and other libertarians are clearly responsible for all the ills in the world right now ;)

Super-genius Naomi Klein FTW? :p

[Sentient Void]

I love Friedman. He's awesome. he definitely had a way with words, and did a lot of good for expanding freedom and the perception of markets in the mainstream. That said, he had his flaws - he, like Rand, for whatever reason, had a Stockholm Syndrome to the State, and wouldn't carry their views to their logical conclusion (anarchocapitalism).

Friedman was awesome on pretty much everything except monetary theory and of course, his belief in the role of a central bank, and some weird concept about a supercomputer controlling the central bank, rates, etc.

With that being said, right before he passed away - he agreed that perhaps a central bank and thus the Fed isn't really needed afterall, implying a shift towards advocating free banking (which I also support).

But again, Friedman is still the man, despite his shortcomings. This coming from an anarchist.

[Tal]

His views on monetary policies are a huge deal breaker for me, he was also a believer in econometrics I think, which also doesnt sit well with me.

[matt0611]

I love Friedman. He's awesome. he definitely had a way with words, and did a lot of good for expanding freedom and the perception of markets in the mainstream. That said, he had his flaws - he, like Rand, for whatever reason, had a Stockholm Syndrome to the State, and wouldn't carry their views to their logical conclusion (anarchocapitalism).

Friedman was awesome on pretty much everything except monetary theory and of course, his belief in the role of a central bank, and some weird concept about a supercomputer controlling the central bank, rates, etc.

With that being said, right before he passed away - he agreed that perhaps a central bank and thus the Fed isn't really needed afterall, implying a shift towards advocating free banking (which I also support).

But again, Friedman is still the man, despite his shortcomings. This coming from an anarchist.

This is pretty much my opinion on Friedman as well.

[William R]

He was perhaps the most successful free-market economist of the 20th century, in terms of his real-world impact on politics and policy----Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

[William R]

I love Friedman. He's awesome. he definitely had a way with words, and did a lot of good for expanding freedom and the perception of markets in the mainstream. That said, he had his flaws - he, like Rand, for whatever reason, had a Stockholm Syndrome to the State, and wouldn't carry their views to their logical conclusion (anarchocapitalism).

Friedman was awesome on pretty much everything except monetary theory and of course, his belief in the role of a central bank, and some weird concept about a supercomputer controlling the central bank, rates, etc.

With that being said, right before he passed away - he agreed that perhaps a central bank and thus the Fed isn't really needed afterall, implying a shift towards advocating free banking (which I also support).

But again, Friedman is still the man, despite his shortcomings. This coming from an anarchist.

Friedman coauthored an article with Anna Schwartz in the Journal of Monetary Economics that asked the question, "Has Government Any Role in Money?" They concluded that in principle it did not need to have one and historically sometimes had none.

And Friedman also emphasized his political-philosophic view of such a gold-based monetary system: "A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development."



http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp

[Carson]

He certainly would have been interesting to talk with or maybe do dinner. Except for my self consciousness in that sort of thing.

Couldn't see it ending in a pie throwing thing.

He sure seemed to be the kind of man capable of learning and growing.

Teaching for sure.

[BuddyRey]

I think every fully-initiated libertarian has a soft spot for Friedman. I know I do. The only flaw I see in his general approach is that he argued for libertarianism, as Ayn Rand did (and as Max Stirner did long before that), on Egoist grounds instead of going to great lengths to show the moral correctness, intuitiveness, and indeed, the compassion behind the ideas.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying consequentialism has failed the libertarian movement. In fact, I begrudgingly admit that by far, the most successful "popularizers" of libertarian ideas have tended to argue from means and ends (Friedman, Rand, Browne, Stossel, etc.) But not everybody is swayed by consequentialist arguments (liberals seem especially immune).

I think the reason Ron Paul has been so effective (perhaps even becoming the biggest catalyst for widespread libertarian conversion in the last century) is because he utilizes both moral and pragmatic appeals so well. He'll tell you why the Drug War, or foreign Empire, or the Welfare State is immoral, and then tell you what's in it for you if they're scrapped. That crucial synthesis is what makes him so appealing, IMO.

[MaxPower]

I say the great preponderance of Friedman's legacy is good. He may have been wrong about monetary policy, but this was not a central focus of his mission or teaching. He was one of the most eloquent and effective spokesmen for individual freedom the world has ever seen.

[Teaser Rate]

In my opinion, he was easily the best economist of the second half of the 20th century and probably the most effective communicator of libertarian principles that ever lived.

[low preference guy]

I think every fully-initiated libertarian has a soft spot for Friedman. I know I do. The only flaw I see in his general approach is that he argued for libertarianism, as Ayn Rand did (and as Max Stirner did long before that), on Egoist grounds instead of going to great lengths to show the moral correctness, intuitiveness, and indeed, the compassion behind the ideas.

i don't get it. i think moral grounds and egoist grounds are the same thing. how do you define morality?

[ababba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_rule

[TheeJoeGlass]

One of my poly sci professors was obsessed with Friedman. I've read a couple of his books. Free To Choose is a good primer on what a libertarian society would look like.

The Chicago school is wrong on monetary issues though, and that is a big problem, since sound money is the starting point for prosperity and limited government in the first place.

I was down with Friedman until I learned more about the Chicago School. But I still enjoy his work.

[TNforPaul45]

First of all, I'm not riding his dick or anything. . .

Probably the most original opening line to a post that has ever been written in these forums! HAHAHHAAHHA