Talk:Milton Friedman

Introduction Text

The introduction text is very long and contains some very specific criticism. This should be moved to the body part! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.84.215 (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm thinking of a change in the 2nd sentence. "An advocate of ____.... Right now it says "laissez-faire capitalism." That doesn't really grab me and I'm thinking if I had to sum it up in one sentence like that I'd say "an advocate of freedom..." or "liberty?" or maybe "free markets" or "the free market" but I really think "freedom" is the word that should go in there, and expound on the specific types of freedoms later in the article.SecretaryNotSure 09:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling his ideology "advocating freedom" would sound like you're endorsing it. We need to remain NPOV here. 1.618033989 09:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

---

the introductory text lacks the required NPOV and while it encompasses the necessary information, including the accolades and recognition which was awarded him, at times it reads like a fawning valentine. Here are some examples:

  ...An advocate of economic freedom,...

which should more properly read "an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism" since that gives historical context to his POV. "Economic freedom" like "freedom" generally, is something most people are "advocates" of, so this sentence in no way defines his position relative to other positions. "Freedom" for the vast majority of Wiki consumers is an implicit goal; the mechanism through which that freedom is to be achieved is what distinguishes thinkers from one another and what distinguishes Friedman from, say, Keynesians.

Here is a paragraph that reads like a valentine:

  Friedman's political positions were buttressed by a large number of technical articles 
  covering a wide range of topics in economics and economic history, which gained the 
  grudging respect of specialists by the early 1960s. His intellectual leadership of the 
  Chicago School, which came to dominate theoretical economics by the 1970s, further strengthened his stature.

There are a number of problems with this with respect to the NPOV policy and to citing references.

First, the adjective "technical" is gratuitous in the extreme. All academic work is "technical" and even non-academic work is "technical". The word "technical" reads like an attempt to inflate the gravity and seriousness of his writings, which are understood to be serious by default.

Second, who were the "specialists" who gave their "grudging respect". In fact, this assertion - that there were specialists who gave their grudging respect - is really an unsupported and arguable assertion about third parties and their feelings and relationship to Friedman and as such constitutes a bit of unsupported original research on the part of the author. Even if the author actually did the original research to argue that this was indeed the case, it's still that- just an argument. It is just as true to say that Friedman's ideas were convincing enough to change many economist's minds on fundamental issues such as monetary policy, the cause of inflation and the role of government regulation. Note the absence "grudging respect". It's not enough to dig up one "grudgingly respectful" academic to prove this statement, because the statement implies a very large, perhaps majority who were "grudgingly respectful" as opposed to merely "convinced".

Finally, it is not an agreed upon fact that the Chicago school came to "dominate" - whatever that might mean- theoretical economics as a science. It's a historical fact that it played an important role in implementation of public policy in some countries, especially in Latin America and the US, but that is not the same as "dominating theoretical economics". It is arguably true that the Chicago school was dominated by Friedman's followers. More realistically, the Chicago school became associated with Friedman's ideas and their views played an important role in the implementation of public policy in some countries. It is also true that Friedman's ideas ran counter to prevailing theories at the time he began writing and later saw a more widespread acceptance.

The final clause "further strengthened his stature" is again a form of valentine writing- it is a gratuitous phrase which merely conveys admiration.

It can't be repeated too often that all Wikipedia has going for it is the credibility of its articles. If that's allowed to degrade, and people start perceiving it as amateurish, then Wikipedia will not be able to attract the attention of interested, serious experts nor the money it needs to continue. Obviously, people are motivated to write articles on things which interest them, and they can be assumed to have a POV on those things. For this very reason, it's incumbent on editors to maintain the discipline needed to write objectivity. Absent this discipline, all that results is a type of "fanboy" writing on each editor's beloved topic/ personality / movement etc. etc.

Nothing I said should be taken as a criticism of individual personalities, editors or efforts.

69.137.246.27 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)swvswv

Iraq

Did Friedman support the invasion of Iraq? After school special 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember of an interview I read somewhere on the net, Friedman did not but his wife did.--Johnbull 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Milton Friedman was always against the Iraq War. Here is a WSJ Interview where he talks about it. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism in Keynes article but not Friedman article?

I find it strange and pretty POV that the article on John Maynard Keynes has a criticism section but the article on Milton Friedman does not, which I would attribute to Friedman's current popularity among the economics crowd. It seems to me that a criticism section is in order.

Then write it. Unschool 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that might be because Friedman proved Keynes wrong, and not the other way around, don't you think? --Uriel 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed to be neutral? Friedman has NOT been proved right-in fact many respectable articles say that he is responsible for the current economic disaster.

66.243.42.11 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a little difficult since Keynes died in 1946 ??? Pawes 9:07, 7 June 2007

A criticism section is not mandatory. If you want to criticize (=have reliable sources) concrete things, do it in respective sections.--Svetovid 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to criticize Friedman in Bush's America.nut-meg 22:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Friedman was highly critical of President Bush.SecretaryNotSure 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article lacks criticism, is unbalanced and provides a very partial perspective on Friedman, hence making it of limited value to researchers. It reads as if all of Friedman's contributions were still commonly accepted, nothing found later to be flawed, and that the application of his ideas only resulted in good. For instance, in Economics as Religion: from Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond, by economist Robert Nelson, Freidman, like most economists of the era, comes under criticism for the underlying religious faith in progress that is implicit in his ideals. Paul Krugmann write's of Freidman's absolutist views (see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857) and provides evidence that the application of some of his ideas did not lead to the outcomes Friedman predicted. It doesn't differentiate between Friedman the economist vs. Friedman the free market advocate and prosyletizer. I see the "Then write it" comment above -- point taken, but must leave to others for now. But I did want to flag that I don't find this article to meet the criteria for a good article, and that I'll have to look elsewhere for a more balanced assessment.

There's also a criticism section in the John Kenneth Galbraith article, where Friedman is actually quoted. He was a very strong advocate of abolishing almost all forms of government regulation, and to suggest that such a position has no critics, is universally agreed upon as best for societies, and has been tested with only positive results and outcomes is false and irresponsible.

OK, may I be informal and as a result, more helpful? Friedman was full of the spirit of Adam Smith, and he got everything right on the greed front. Here is what he missed: if we allow individuals to do and buy whatever they want, individuals will (without intending to?) allow their reptilian brains to take command. As a result, some number of reptiles will buy humvees, huge McMansions three hours from work, and etc...

Eventually, as the mortgages weigh on their reptilian souls, these lizards will be sorry for their behavior, but unable to extricate themselves from the wretched excess and unhappiness that will ensue.

Viola. Today!

Friedman and his friends he is a child molester missed that, as far as I can tell.

Where's the evidence to that? It's not even a complete sentence! --Dchem (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Citizens of the U.S. are today less happy than they were in the 1950's. Why, oh Richard, oh George H, oh Ronald, oh George W, might that be, despite the fact that you have had your ( and Milton's) way for as long as I can recall? If you guys were right, why did we end up less happy than before?

That's a stupid question. The issue was never happiness, it was [i]freedom[/i] ('life, liberty and the //pursuit// of happiness') - freedom for people to live their lives in such a manner, and to engage or not engage in such voluntary relationships as they believe to be conductive to their personal happiness. - User: Spock 156.34.21.207 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

come one, SOMEBODY write a criticism section already, those of us who want to learn more and develop an individual opinion need the full story please.Lou777 (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There definetly should be information about the application of Friedman's free market principles, by his disciples (the Chicago boys), in South America (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia), and the catastrophic affects they had on the economies of that region. Friedman's tacic support of brutal dictators such as Pinocet to advance his theories should also recieve attention. Naomi Klein's recent book "The Shock Doctrine" provides ample specifics and references. Historical evidence that refutes Friedman's theories should also be added (eg deregulation debacles like Enron; environmental, legal, and labor abuses following privitization of national industries; historical failures of tax cuts to stimulate economic growth (low taxes preceded the great depression, and have often preceded drops in unemployment in the US); the association between freer market policies and greater income inequality in the US, etc... History will not view Friedman kindly. 24.19.1.156 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Income inequality is a measure of jealousy. Friedman proved that the more free a market, the better off the poor will be regardless of how well the rich are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.30.75 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of that in the section on Chile. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel (memorial) prize

Liftarn and Beit Or, what's the point in changing it either way? Just come to an agreement here rather than use up Wikipedia's disk space. CloudNine 07:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. // Liftarn

There is an agreement to be consistent with the Nobel Prize in Economics page, Liftarn has so far refused to avid by this. As discussed in the talk page for Nobel Price in Economics I think the only real solution is going to be to ask for mediation because some small minority don't want to accept what was decided for the Nobel Prize in Economics page. --Uriel 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That was for the article name (where a shorter name makes sense even if it's incorrect). In text (and wikilinks) the lenght is less of an issue. // Liftarn

Full name is mentioned under Awards section. Using Nobel Memorial Prize doesn't make sense because that is neither official nor most common name. -- Vision Thing -- 12:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize is the semiofficial short form. // Liftarn

Really? Who uses this semiofficial form? -- Vision Thing -- 13:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Nobel foundation as far as I recall. // Liftarn

The trouble is Nobel Memorial Prize may confuse readers, who might think that the Nobel Prize in Economics and the Memorial Prize were two different things. (Yup, they can click on Nobel Memorial Prize, but that does break flow when reading through the article) 12:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Nobel Prize in Economics is that it may confuse readers, who might think that there is a Nobel Prize in Economics. // Liftarn

"Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", for all intents and purposes and to the common man, is the Nobel Prize in Economics. CloudNine 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a prize awarded by the Nobel foundation in the exact same way it awards its other prizes. "Nobel Prize in Economics" is what almost everyone calls it. It gets almost 250,000 Google hits; "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" gets 10,700. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and the Right Livelihood Award is also known as "the Alternative Nobel Prize". So you say because some call it by that name we should call the participants Nobel Prize winners? No, call things what they are or in some other way make the distinction clear. // Liftarn

It says on Right Livelihood that it is no way connected to the Nobel Prize, whereas it doesn't on Nobel Prize in Economics. Anyway, we should stick with the title of the page; if you disagree, submit a move request for Nobel Prize in Economics. CloudNine 10:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not compare apples with icream trucks here. Article titles and how it is refered in articles are two different things. // Liftarn

The Nobel committee hands out this prize for economics in exactly the same way it hands out its other prizes; it doesn't hand out the Right Livelihood prize. And if the name is wrong, then get the article moved. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It's still no Nobel Prize and there exists no "Nobel Prize in Economics" and it would be silly to misslead readers that there is. // Liftarn

Good article?

I understand that neo-liberal economic theory is under heavy attack these days due to its inability to provide an adequate response to a number of issues; the environmental crisis, growing economic disparity, wide-spread sickness, crime, and poverty (despite the promise of providing a solution to these), and the destruction and degradation of culture and place. These are obviously very general critiques, and I was hoping that this article would apply at least some of these criticisms, or others to the works of Friedman, as I'm not familiar with his works per se. I understand that if I want a criticism section the best way is to write it, but I don't feel qualified. At the very least, this shouldn't be listed as a wiki "good article" due to its lack of neutrality.

Rhennesy 13:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Those comments don't make sense. Neo-liberal economic theory never claims that it can tackle the environment, economic disparity, etc. it simply claims to have a working model of how the human economy functions. You do not criticize algebraic models for failing to come up with creative dinner recipes because algebra does not make that claim. Similarly, this extends to Friedman's own writings. Read Free to Choose, he includes an entire section on why economic disparity does and should exist, he makes no claim that free-market economics will eliminate it. Furthermore, Friedman agreed with the findings of Coase and the Coase Theorem, which forms the basis for the "cap and trade" solution to climate change.

If you want to include a criticism section, that's fine, but please post criticisms of the ideas Milton Friedman actually had, rather than those that others may wish to ascribe to him.

75.2.142.164 06:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed Infobox

I changed the infobox to scientist. Friedman considered himself a scientist using the scientific method to investigate economic issues, so I think the new infobox is warranted.

--Reetoc 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

friedman's ideas

ideas list:

friedman is known for promoting ideas. his ideas are discussed in two parts of the article, but it's not clear how comprehensive the discussion is. it might be helpful to provide a consolidated list of theories and policies introduced or advanced by friedman.

re criticism: perhaps a criticism section could take the form of a box score comparing predictions or policy decisions based on friedman's work or recommendations to how things actually worked out in practice?

misattributions:

a misattribution is noted in a comment above. as the friedmans' name has been widely associated by others with the general idea basing political policy on neo-liberal concepts it wouldn't surprise at all if there are a lot of these kicking around the ether. it might be worth listing those too. as milton and rose worked both together and separately and sometimes agreed but not always, noting their points of agreement and disagreement might be interesting too.

- ef —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.214.27 (talk) 19:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

again with the Chile thing

What kind of leftist bullshit is this?

"....The brutality of the Chilean dictatorship combined with its implementation of free market policies seemed to give the lie however, to Friedman's argument that free markets and free societies necessarily went together. His failure to criticize the regime which openly and explicitly implemented his policy recommendations, and his failure to acknowledge that it was only through the bloody military coup and overthrow of the freely and democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende that his policies could be imposed damaged his moral standing and weakened the power of his arguments that capitalism was about being "free to choose.""

First of all, the first part is only slightly semi true, that Friedman many times said he did learn that just having a "free market" wasn't enough. He thought it would require a "free political system" but he found out they could be out of sync like that. This is mentioned in the 2002 forward to "Capitalism and Freedom." But he also pointed out many times, and here's the ultimate truth of the whole "chile thing" ... He spoke to people there to educate them, to help them become free. And that's it. Applying his principles, the people did throw off the chains of oppression. Chile became "a miracle" because of Milton Friedman. All that other stuff is crap... like the fact that he "met with Pinochet... as if, when the dictator says he wants to meet you, you tell him "no thanks." And that's another aspect of Friedman, he would meet with anyone, and try to teach them, not just "tell them" things.

The next part is completely false, Friedman criticised the regime, basically, his whole life, so that comment about "his failure to criticize the regime" is pure bullshit. And so is the part about his "failure to acknowledge" that "only through bloody ... overthrow of the freely and democratically elected socialist government... "

As well as "damaged his moral standing?" ... to who? "weakened the power of his argumenents that capitalism was about being 'free to choose'" That's not an "argument" -- that's the definition. Now if someone wanted to argue "you shouldn't be allowed to choose" ... I got a better idea, we'll make another TV show called "I'll choose for you" or "I know better than you."

Obviously, this needs editing but I'll give it some thought and see if someone else edits it or if you have comments. But I wanted to explain the reason for the edits before making them. SecretaryNotSure 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"In 1975, two years after the military coup that toppled the government of Salvador Allende, the economy of Chile experienced a crisis. Friedman accepted the invitation of a private foundation to visit Chile and lecture on principles of economic freedom." - Btw, it's widely known now that Friedman was involved in Chile's economic situation in the lead up to the overthrow of Allende's gov and a number of students of the Chicago school were given key economic posts. To claim that Friedman turned up as things got out of hand to clear them up is wide of the mark... his school of thought was what perpetuated such problems. Pete esq85 (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Estonia Section Needs to Site its sources!!!

Please site the sources for Estonia part, or delete it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.39.32 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are various sources, I think they interviewed the leader of Estonia in this show: http://pressroom.pbs.org/programs/the_power_of_choice where he specifically talked about reading a book by Friedman and patterning the economy after that.SecretaryNotSure 19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity of article questioned

I've attempted several times to make this article less subjective, but it keeps getting reverted or changed. The articles of most other major economists include a criticism section, and aren't anywhere as subjective as this one. In attempting to make things more cohesive and identical as far as format is concerned, I've edited a number of things (Such as that Friedman's philosophies intrinsically result in a freer/richer people, or that he promoted civil liberties when he was very strongly against freedom of association, etc) or prefaced them with statements that clearly define that these are merely opinions with little to no fact behind them besides Friedman himself claiming as such ("In Friedman's opinion" etc). In addition, Salvador Allende was democratically elected and I can't find any references to massive human rights abuses or meddling by the ruling party in the democratic process (unlike, say, Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro), and so government seems more appropriate than regime. Lastly, I've removed several inaccurate claims that aren't backed up by anyone but Friedman himself in interviews- as I said, I could claim I'm Sailor Moon but without solid references nobody will believe me- Friedman himself claiming something doesn't make it so, especially when there are many references that say otherwise, or are ambiguous.

Rvannith 06:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Rvannith

Obviously there's a high standard for "criticizing" Milton Friedman. You should read some of his books or watch the videos. Another of the problems is that a crazy woman just came out with a book "criticizing" Friedman, but I think any of the editors who know anything about the subject of economics knows it would be irresponsible to add these rantings as some kind of "criticism."

2nd, what does some guy in Chile if he was elected (well, actually he was appointed by the senate not "democratically elected" but that's beside the point) or hugo chavez or anyone else have to do with Friedman? They have been making up this story about Friedman and somehow linking him to some bad things that happened in Chile for a long time. I spoke to some guy in New Jersey once, so am I responsible for all the toxic waste? It's a crazy idea. And it's probably better dealt with in books on economics or the biography of the people involved. The current paragraph sums it up pretty fairly I think.

I'll probably regret saying this, but one thing that Friedman always said, is look at the world both throughout time and geographically, and without exception where people are freer, they are better off, they are more wealthy, and where there is more central control (socialism, communism, nazi-ism, bahth-ism etc ) the people are poorer. History is absolutely clear on that and that's still true for today. So, someone who knows nothing about economics writes a book and tells us how Friedman's ideas were all wrong? It has to be really well documented, well researched, well supported, logical, with depth of knowledge in order to even be taken seriously. Not just some guy that "said he's wrong." Sure that expresses a certain kind of bias, but it's not a bias based just on "personal feelings" but a bias based on knowledge. The 2nd kind of "bias" is what you should find in an encyclopedia.

I think most of the other editors who have studied the life of Milton Friedman would probably agree with most of what I'm saying.SecretaryNotSure 08:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read Capitalism and Freedom, for reference- I have *not* read the Naomi Klein book you refer to, however. That said, there are many different types of economic systems- the one Friedman advocated simply being one of many. Given that most of the other major ones have criticism sections, it simply goes to follow that this one should too. I've went trawling back through previous edits, and on a number of occasions solid references have been removed for no reason, whilst flimsy references have been added- for example, in a line I've removed in the Chile section, it is claimed that Chile is free because of Friedman's policies, with a reference to Friedman, which is inappropriate. What is required is statistics showing that people have more freedom or are better off as a direct result of his policies, instead of "I'm right because I say so".

"I'll probably regret saying this, but one thing that Friedman always said, is look at the world both throughout time and geographically, and without exception where people are freer, they are better off, they are more wealthy, and where there is more central control (socialism, communism, nazi-ism, bahth-ism etc ) the people are poorer."

I personally agree with that statement, although I wouldn't attach that to unfettered capitalism, as it allows control (money) to be centred in the hands of a few, which is central control, as far as I can tell. That said, I do not think it is appropriate to engage in a huge argument over philosophy/politics in a talk page. Anyway, I think it is important to note that the majority of references in the article are skewed the other way- they are not from neutral sources. There are a lot of references to other people with similar views to Friedman and by think tanks who hold up his theories/ideas, or even institutions he was involved with in which he helped formulate their viewpoint/beliefs- but none whatsoever from economists from different philosophical viewpoints, and even more telling, no references that deal with statistics, which I think could be the easiest way of offering an objective POV.

Rvannith 05:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Rvannith

"i'll probably regret saying this...socialism, communism...freer...central control" USA is very wealth; however very centralized, controlled, etc. almost three million in prisons. history of USA sees civil war for centralized control, mass public education to institutionalize, and a military( well the problem with the military is hard to explain. jus look at costa rica with no military and a superior economy and much more peace than nicaragua). so, i guess it's not freedom you mean, but free trade. "free trade" is a weighted word that usually means the freedom of some to oppress others. USA doesnt engage in free trade, they do forced trade. true, that is free trade in a sense, totally. however, once the rich start making monopolies, legislature, barriers to entry, etc. the free trade is worth much less. this has happened in the USA. yet, USA remains rich....off the backs of the poor. from all this, i assume you didnt mean freedom, you meant "capitalist". now, please look at some examples of capitalist countries, such as haiti, indonesia, or most of africa, which are all capitalist. these countries are not rich. russia went from a developing country to the leader of the second world in no time. they have incredible literacy. since its collapse (which was caused by the USA, where they had to use resources in military ventures) they are losing almost a million people a year to hades —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.239.32 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

lack of balance

The lack of balance in this article is a discredit to Wikipedia. Whatever your attitude towards Friedman, it is beyond dispute that his theories are not universally accepted and his legacy is contested. To exclude such criticism on the grounds that you do not agree with it is to demonstrate willful disregard for the principle of balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.27.34 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. To continue conversation above, the Naomi Klein book (The Shock Doctrine) is very thoroughly researched and comes across as a devastating critique of Friedman and his theories (how accurate/accepted it is I cannot say, but Joseph Stiglitz gave it a good review in the NYT). Surely it is worth a mention, especially as she is a high-profile author. There must surely be much more in the same vein. For example, a linked-to article on this page, the one about the Nobel prize in economics, contains the following: "Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal... [has] advocated that the Prize in Economics should be abolished.Myrdal's objections were based on his view that the 1976 Prize in Economics to Milton Friedman and the 1974 Prize in Economics shared by Friedrich Hayek (both classical liberal economists) were undeserved". If that is notable enough for that article is it notable enough for this? We really need a knowledgeable person to go over the whole article and add some criticism and balance. Alewhey (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a whole article devoted to criticism of Milton Friedman is justified? I'd prefer to see criticism by economists since most non-economists have little understanding of Friedman's intellectual contributions. More material could be found in the Paul Krugman article which is in the references. --RedHouse18 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

I think this article is a problem and certainly does not qualify as a "good article". Someone completely removed what little criticism there was, and when I reverted it, it was again removed with some unsourced and unencyclopedic copy put in its place ("totally disagree" !?). Monetarism is not anything like as accepted as this article seems to portray, surely a qualified economist would like to step up and give this topic the treatment it deserves? I think this article reflects badly on wikipedia. Alewhey (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is criticism?

"It's as if Adam Smith has transcended the centuries through Milton Friedman to reassert economic supremacy and modernity in educated minds, once and for all. Friedman exposed Marxist/socialist theory as the romantic utopian superstitious means to dictatorship that it was.... even aredent socialists are rethinking the 21st Century due to success of free markets systems coupled with democracy, benefitting all classes. Some fringe intellectuals still can't bring themselves to refer to it as anything else but "that radical capitalism".

This is a paragraph from the criticism section of this article. So how hard is wikipedia trying to make itself to be a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.78.12 (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Klein

Why did someone remove most of my mention of Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine? The entire book is a refutation of the implementation of Friedman's economic principles. Whether you agree with her view or not, it's regardless a prominent book, currently a bestseller, that is very relevant and I think it should be mentioned beyond one sentence. I think it should be restored closer to how I had it. What I had was a couple of sentences with direct quotations from the author, and I think it's better than the vague, one sentence mention that replaced it. What do you think? Jcrav2k6 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a much better-written mention now, good. Is this too fringe to include?Jcrav2k6 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing about Naomi Klein when I looked; I have added a paragraph about Friedman's influence on economy of Chile (the 1973 coup), most of which was information from The Shock Doctrine. I am a layman, however. Please add more.Saibotchilizm (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Naomi Klein segment is horrible. She makes much better arguments against then the one credited to her in this article. I would suggest something to the effect of: "Naomi Klein has criticized Friedman's philosophy of low market regulation and strict adherence to the free market in her book The Shock Doctrine." and maybe you could work in the phrase I've heard her use often which is "mixed economy", basically a capital market along with regulation and a limited socialist safety net. The way it is right now I would just assume take it out if its not changed or just list her name as a critic 97.91.190.78 (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether and how to include Klein has been much argued & reverted. I think the diff for the main edit which brought the Klein bit to it's current state was: [1]. Maybe there's something useful in there you can revive. I think it's worthwhile to include something from Klein, because her book is so prominent and (I haven't read it so this is second-hand knowledge) apparently focuses a lot on Friedman. The debates where on where to include it and how much. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Obviously I am not a major editor here and will leave that for others. I just saw it and thought it was awful. I don't think Klein criticizes Friedman specifically (I'm sure she has but it's not her focus), she just has a different take on economics. I suppose she could be considered Keynesian. I really feel that a much more generalized statement be better instead of this obscure and unexplained argument. Here's my suggestion, and I'm open to anyone changing the wording.

"Economist and author of the book 'The Shock Doctrine' Naomi Klein is among critics from the left of Friedman, arguing among other things that low regulation can lead to lawlessness in the market." Hopefully that's at least a start to better wording, I'm not used to writing in encyclopedia style so I'm sure someone could make it better. My main point is it needs to be more general. 97.91.190.78 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Klein is NOT an economist.radek (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - Replace economist with "journalist" I guess 97.91.190.78 (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I agree with above. Where the heck is the massive amount of criticism for someone whose works have done far more harm to society, the planet and international community than Keynesian economics ever did. Has the right wing taken control of Wikipedia? Let's set this straight Wiki editors. Either we delete the critical section from Keynes or allow some into Miltie's.

Meraloma (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Klein citation either should be summarized or it should be shortened (without any loss of meaning) and formated correctly. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to put this in a way that won't be taken as a flame, but it's hard. Friedman certainly is a conservative eocnomist, but he's still obviously within the band of what would be considered "mainstream" to anyone with even a passing understanding of economics. Naomi Klein, by contrast, is a crank. It's good that they have the Krugman quote up there, but if this is meant to be a serious article there should be more quotes from actual economists (like Krugman) and fewer from irrelevant oddballs like Klein, whose criticism couldn't be more irrelevant if she started quoted Posh Spice. -- HowardW Jan 20, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? Friedman and anyone else espousing free-market ideology is the crank, including 90% of "mainstream" economists. Look at the world around us which has been so heavily shaped by his free-market policies. Global warming and an environment that is being eroded on a daily basis. Slave labor in China. Hundreds of millions are lifted from poverty, these economists claim-- but in many Chinese cities, the air is dangerous to breath. (Something like 750,000 die annually from smog in China.) I am an American, and I have seen nothing but ill come from free-market policies-- NAFTA and CAFTA which have degraded my own labor opportunities and quality of life.

Instead of calling Klein a "crank", how about you address the issues she actually brings up in her work? Refute some of her claims with contrary evidence? Attack some of her issues with rational arguments, instead of pompously (and arrogantly) lambasting her? I'm no economist, but she presents a lot more evidence in The Shock Doctrine for the serious problems of free-market capitalism than Miltie ever did. He used computer models. She researched history. Whose work is more valid? Saibotchilizm (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to Klein. I guess I'm coming to this conversation late, but why isn't reference to the Shock Doctrine in the article? This recent reversion[2] looks correct to me, in that the link is to a general site that doesn't help much in regard to Friedman. The book overall does, however. Klein is definitely a "recognized critic", whether she presents a caricature or not.Cretog8 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Friedman has done this world more harm than good, yet the criticism sections including those references of Klein's research have been repeatedly removed by these new Chicago Boys, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.247.215 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heller

I removed the Heller thing from the criticism paragraph. The opinion of someone, whoever he is, on the behaviour of some followers of Friedman is inappropriate here. Please focus on the grounds of economics or politics where much more appropriate points can be developped. --Bombastus (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly

The Shock Doctrine in truth has little to no evidence in showing Friedman "complicit" in the military coup's of other nations. Melorama, im no expert on wiki, but those views are not supposed to spill out into your work on here. Klien has no evidence and are we really saying "She wrote a book critisising, she has to be included"?

I mean I say that "The Sky is blue, principally because of a reflection upon smurfland, not the sea. As previously thought" and write a sizable book on the issue. That doesnt make what im saying anything other than unbased and unevidenced crap. The quote on the lack of evidence in Kliens book is fine, but Klien's views arguing Friedman complicit shouldnt be shown at all, its based in fantasy. Superpie (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

I tag the article partly because of all the comments on this page. My own issues, however, can be seen here at the FAC mentioned at the top of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please create a short summary of main POV issues that led you to add POV tag and place it in this section. Otherwise it will not be clear what changes need to be done to the article. --Doopdoop (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I second this request. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We should try removing the tag after one week if there is no reply. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), signaling (A) (British: signalling), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for good photos

I'm currently looking for good photos to help illustrate this article. If you can provide generic, Fair Use photos of Milton Friedman, please do so by replying to this message. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Criticism

This article is one of the most biased heavily developed articles I've encountered on Wikipedia, and until its general tone changes and a stable criticism section is established, it will have to be tagged as a neutrality dispute. The establishment of a proper, and accepted criticism, the absense of which at this stage of the article's development is a disgrace and has been raised on numerous occasion, should be the first priority. However the general presentation of Friedman throughout the article also needs to change.Nwe (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism will also need to be extensive, since criticism of Friedman, and even more so of his disciples, is very extensive, probably more extensive than that for any other modern economist.Nwe (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged in Wikipedia. Can you give a couple of refs so that notable criticism can be incorporated into text (most likely in the Economics and Public policy positions sections)? --Doopdoop (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Only as opposed to criticism properly and widely incorporated into articles, it is far better to have a criticism section than no criticism at allm which is the case in this article. Therefore removal criticism sections on that basis is utterly groundless. Since the establishment of any form of criticism in this article has proved difficult, a criticism is most likely the best, and most easily maintained, way to allow criticism at this point. Your idea that criticism should be "summarised" is also completely wrong. Nwe (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to find some valid criticism and avoid excessive quoting. -- Vision Thing -- 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply because you disagree with the criticisms doesn't mean they aren't valid. If you have a problem with the level of quoting then you should try to rewrite the criticism, not remove it completely.Nwe (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're edits are utterly unacceptable in every way. The incorporation of some criticism that has broken down to the point of meaningless into the economics section violates policies on criticism and its integration into the article. You also changed "free-market economics" back to "economic freedom" without giving any reasons whatsoever.Nwe (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody thinks that Milton Friedman was never criticised. Please help us understand which criticisms are most notable, so they can be included in the appropriate sections using WP:SUMMARY style. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of criticism of him in the article implies such a belief. Summary style is intended for detail that has its own fork, its irrelevant here. I should also point out that these cavils are, even if they were relevant, absolutely no reason for removing all criticism of him.Nwe (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there are only two criticisms given in the entire piece, its kind of hard to say which criticisms are "notable". And since summary style is irrelevant here, there is no need anyway.Nwe (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Please state which criticisms are most represented among experts. --Doopdoop (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends what type of "experts" and "people concerned with the subject" you're talking about? Sociologists, economists, political scientists, political writers and historians all have a say. People concerned would involve, in some way I suppose people affected by Friedman's policies would count, but also people involved in combating Friedman's ideology in the fields of politics and academia. Klein's a good example of this, though there's plenty of others.Nwe (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Friedman regarding his links to Pinochet are fair game. But what else is there? Criticism of his scholarly work would seem more applicable in specific economic philosophy wiki articles. CavanaughPark 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)CavanaughPark —Preceding unsigned comment added by CavanaughPark (talk • contribs)

income tax witholding

Didn't Friedman come up with withholdings on paychecks of income tax when he worked for the US Government? Pdbailey (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know but it's something worth knowing, given that by the 1970s he was opposed to any withholding. His evolution from a Keynesian to a the monetarist was quite a turnabout. Unschool (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No Nobel in Economics

(moved old unsigned comment from top of page)Cretog8 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an important point of order: Technically there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics. The correct English name is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." Alfred Nobel did not create the prize nor does the Nobel Foundation supply the money for the award.

Klein

I still don't understand why some try to add the critic of Naomi Klein, which is probably the most inappropriate amongst all. Apart from people believing in conspiracies and plots, there isn't even the beginning of a rational argumentation in it. Therefore, may I remind everyone that this is not because she may have some editorial succes that her economic critics are adapted here. Let's focus on economics, which is the subject, and not some leftist lunacies. There is largely enough to see, with keynesian critcs for example. --Bombastus (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Klein's criticism isn't encyclopedia-worthy.

Putting Naomi Klein's book in the criticism section of an encyclopedia article on Milton Friedman is akin to putting Ayn Rand's or Deepak Chopra's thoughts on Quantum Mechanics in an encyclopedia article on that topic; Klein's polemic isn't even based on the thought of Friedman but rather on the out-of-context cherry-picking of a few quotations and a tremendous flight of fancy.

This is very well-documented. One place to start looking--if you don't want to bother picking up the book and seeing for yourself that it's dishonest, slanderous rubbish--is Johan Norberg's whitepaper [3].

I'm not convinced that "Criticism" sections as they currently appear on Wikipedia are encyclopedic, but we editors can and I dare say are obligated to make the distinction between bona fide criticism (a la Paul Krugman) and the patently ridiculous. Some writings do fall in between, but Klein's book is not one.

Bkalafut (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You believe that a four paragraph collection of the cuff dismissals is adequate for you to dimiss Klein? Norberg's "refutation" is incredibly bad, a mixture of childish contradiction and plain inaccuracy. Thatcher's policies did not have support from the British public befor the Falklands; she was down in opinion polls and there were strong rumblings within her own party. His dismissive comments on China are just pathetic. Klein lays out why its wrong, he thinks he just refute that be reiterating the conventional. In fact its just occured to me that the entire tone of this guy's "critique" points to him only having actually read the first chapter. And there's several more problems and inaccuracies besides those. We're all aware that that's the conventional view, . Additionally, aying that a quotation is out of context without elaborating is just a completely inadequate way of trying to put the most comprehensive method of criticising someone, their own words. What's out of context, as just one example, about a direct quote from Friedman's autobiography that shows him explicitly lying about the chronology of Pinochet's coming to power and the economic policies he adopted.

But all that isn't really relevant here. Regardless of your disagreement with book, though, which are legitimate, your entire argument about the "worth" of Klein's policies or whatever is utterly baseless. There's nothing more unencyclopaedic than the inclusion or exclusion of material on the basis of subjective opinion. That you don't believe this to be the "right" sort of criticism is utterly irrelevant. It happens to be arguably the most famous and comprehensive contemporary criticism of Friedman in the world, and while you might not acknowledge it, millions of other people do. Needless to say supporters of Friedman aren't really the people who should judge the value of critiques of him.Nwe (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you had to get that off your chest. Feel better now, after your rant?

Four paragraphs? I linked a whitepaper much longer than that. You accuse Norberg of basing his criticism on the first chapter, but it would appear as though you didn't even read the second page of what I linked. "Policies or whatever"? "Disagreement with book"? Get serious. Read the whitepaper I linked. Klein's criticisms are based on an imaginary Milton Friedman and not Milton Friedman the academic economist. They are beyond nonscholarly, they are dishonest, and do not merit inclusion here.

Encyclopedia editors must decide what is and is not worthy. We do not include here what a Tucson cab driver or the grocery clerk at Safeway has to say about Milton Friedman. Unless you understand why that is and admit that it is our inevitable duty as editors to judge content, you ought to reconsider your participation here. Moreover, the suggestion that admirers of Milton Friedman are not cut out to judge critiques of him is as insulting as it is stupid. We are not crazy people whose intellectual capabilities magically disappear when considering others' appraisals of individuals we believe to have made substantial contributions to human understanding.

If you're going to make the case for inclusion of the Klein criticisms, you're going to have to do better than lying about the sources others give (four paragraphs?) and insinuating that they are incapable of judging scholarship. Bkalafut (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If a senior fellow at the Cato institute writes a 15-page paper on a book, and that book is reviewed somewhat sympathetically by a Nobel laureate in a major newspaper, that's evidence the book is notable, regardless of its quality. (I haven't read the book myself.) Cretog8 (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:UNDUE states the Wikipedia's policy quite clearly: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. We don't have to include anything anyone has ever said about Friedman. If President Bush has something to say about Friedman, we don't necessarily have to include it in the "criticism" section despite it being notable.

Even Stiglitz acknowledged that Klein's book was not a reliable work of scholarship, and the criticism he agrees with is already well summed up in the Krugman quotation. I'll agree that it's notable--as Norberg, Stiglitz, Tyler Cowen (who goes beyond Stiglitz to call the book "Dadaesque"), and quite a few others have all weighed in on it. Accordingly there's an article on it in Wikipedia. But it's not a reliable source on the thought of Milton Friedman. We'd be better off citing what Stiglitz--who has read Friedman and who is qualified to have a strong opinion on economics--had to say about Friedman in his review of Klein's book than giving several paragraphs worth of attention to the discredited Naomi Klein, who barely even pretends to base her criticism of Friedman on the words and actions of Friedman.Bkalafut (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with the way Klein's book is described in the article (off and on), though. I think it would make more sense to integrate a very brief bit on it into the "Chile" section, or something like that. Cretog8 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a large number of editors (those who restore the page after others delete the Klein reference) believe that Naomi Klein's book is relevant and scholarly (shocking, I know!!). To remove any trace of her from this article is going to be an exercise in futility, as it has been thus far. To all the people who disagree with Klein, I suggest you allow the mention, but link to something from a right-wing critic like [[4]] this that sums up your view. That way, we can have multiple viewpoints. This is what Wikipedia is about. Compromise. Not totalitarian revisions. Jcrav2k6 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A large section on Klein's criticisms and criticisms of those criticisms does cross the line into UNDUE. I really think the way to go is to integrate something like 2 sentences on Klein's criticisms into the main flow of the article--probably in the Chile section. Then the responses to the criticisms are already there, without adding anything new. I haven't read the book, so I'm not in a great position to make these changes, since I'd be working based on what others wrote about what she said. Cretog8 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Klein's work at all crosses the line into UNDUE but if dropping her name in the Chile section and integrating a sentence or two into the Chile section can serve as "flypaper" and keep end the constant reversion to versions of this article containing a lengthy plug for her book, then I'll take it. Bkalafut (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Klein is a charismatic speaker and a nice lady but I don't agree with her views expressed in her lengthy book. Personal view aside, the following are Klein's views and I don't see any reason why they should stay in a Wikipedia entry that is not about her (note: the "Klein argues ..." and "Klein states ...".

"Klein argues that the human rights violations of these regimes cannot and should not be separated from the economic programs they adopted."

"Klein states that human rights abuses were the mechanism which allowed these regimes to adopt Friedman's economic orthodoxy."

And the following statement is what Klein claims and again, it seems inappropriate to me to include what she claims here in another person's entry.

"Without the repression of leftist opposition, the radical economic shifts which occurred in these countries could not have happened, since, in the cases she cites, she claims that they did not have popular support."

And then this big jump to conclusion.

"Therefore, authoritarianism was the only possible way to implement Friedman's ideals, Klein argues. A democratic regime could never implement Friedman's strict and in her view, repressive, economic ideals."

Finally, Klein may have written a really thick book (and a popular book amongst some circle of readers) but that doesn't automatically make her an expert (in Economics nor Friedman).

At this moment, I so much wish I were a millionth as insightful as the 93-years-young monetary economist Anna J. Schwartz (long time colleague of Friedman), I doubt she would have any trouble disposing the examples and arguments laid out by Klein cleanly and without much effort. Dr. Schwartz last "beat the crap out" of Paul Krugman in a 2007 NBER working paper. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13546 That was a beautiful read and ripped Krugman to pieces.

Sorry for my finally rant and aside. It is awful (and time wasting) to have ideological fight play out in Wikipedia entries. It suck. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking Norberg (who is not "right-wing") or Tyler Cowen is suitable in an article about The Shock Doctrine or Naomi Klein. This is an article about Milton Friedman.

Bkalafut (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to Bkaflut's provocative posts and personal insults here and on my talk page if and when I get the time, since I believe the level of provocation involved entails a fairly detailed response and because I did make the mistake of failing to notice the whole of the linked article, which from what I have read of it so far necessitates some fairly straightforward but nonetheless longer refution. But neither of those are really at issue here. Simply on criticisms made by Bkaflut regarding Klein, they are utterly ludicrous. Klein's book has 60 pages of foot-notes, and the criticism of Friedman is based on his real quotes and actions.The fact of the matter is that the views of people who think Friedman is god or who think Klein is worthless cannot dictate the the criticism section this page. Klein is a well-respected, best-selling journalistic known for painstaking methods of research and "the Shock Doctrine" was fairly extensively praised. She is notable and well-respected, and simply cannot be barred from this article by any argument. The suggestion that her criticism should be restricted to the Chile section is also flawed, firstly since the continuation of a criticism section (which I support as a first step towards including proper criticism as a part of this article) provided it is balanced and comprehensive) for other other issues serves to marginalise Klein and secondly since Chile is only one part of Klein's criticism, which is far, far wider.Nwe (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bellesisles's book on gun control also had tens of pages of footnotes, and we all know what became of that. I don't know what a "best-selling journalistic" is but it's not a scholar. Anna Schwartz, Johan Norberg, and co. have very much trashed Klein's credibility. It doesn't matter if she's popular or notable, she's not a scholar and her attempt at economic history is considered "fringe". As per WP:UNDUE and WP:RS her book doesn't belong here at all. Dropping her name up in the Chile section is a "compromise" with her fans. But you say that she cannot be barred from this article by "any argument" which is your admission that it's your way or the highway. I challenge you to find a favorable review of Klein's book in a scholarly economics or economic history journal. When you do, I will change my mind.

Bkalafut (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, if there are truly people who believe that "Friedman is God", it merits inclusion in the article and perhaps a page of its own. Can "Nwe" come up with a source on that one?

Or is this just more ranting from someone who's already made his intellectual immaturity clear?

Bkalafut (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course opularity is important, the value of someone's opinions can't just be measured on a poll of your "right kind of people", just because someone doesn't subscribe to or base their knowledge around the principles of "rationalist" economics doesn't mean they're not a scholar and can't comment on anything deemed related to economics, not least becauese the foundations of economics are arguably the most politically-skewed in all of academia, deems itself qualified to comment on everything and because it has effects far beyond its own parameters. Saying otherwise is the equivalent of saying that only qualified theologians have a right to make any comment on the existence of God. Klein is well respected not only as a journalist but in some respects as a historian, and a former visiting fellow of the London School of Economics. According to this site she is, according to prospect magazine, the highest ranked female intellectual in the world. Of course you'd probably dismiss that because it was "popular", I mean look at all the lefties on it, how about that "unscientific" lefty at the top! In any case, the book received widespread critical acclaim by top newspapers, including numerous conservative ones. Nwe (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not contend that only theologians have any right to comment on the existence of God, but would contend that we should not take seriously, as encyclopedia editors, a person's comment on a point of theology unless he demonstrates familiarity with the subject matter and the thoughtfulness of a theologian. Slandering the entirety of the economics profession by declaring their peculiar science "politically skewed" (a statement with no support in the literature, and which surveys of the political beliefs of economists contradict!) is a weak excuse for including any-old-criticism of Friedman beyond the bounds of WP:UNDUE. Suppose you, personally, object to "rationalist" physics and would prefer that the science came to different, irrational conclusions. Would that justify putting a criticism section with a lengthy reference to some popular crank in the Quantum Mechanics article? Bkalafut (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE page keeps getting linked. As per the rules found there: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."

Whether her view is a "minority view" is debatable but not relevant. Assuming it is, though, I agree that there shouldn't be a lot of text at all devoted to her critique since this article isn't about her. However, since her entire book deals directly with Friedman, her views can be briefly summed up in the criticism section (not in the Chile section, since the book has a wider scope than that).

While it may be a minority, surely you will not disagree that those who subscribe to the viewpoints of Ms. Klein do not constitute a "tiny-minority." As was linked, she was ranked as one of the top intellectuals in the world, and her book has been recieved fairly well by most reviewers. These publications aren't fringe newsletters with small circulations, they are internationally recognized ones. Therefore, following the rules found on the WP:UNDUE, I don't think complete deletion of anything mentioning her name is warranted at all.

Jcrav2k6 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For quite some time I've had a little difficulty interpreting WP:UNDUE. "Minority" is context-dependent and it is not clear to me if the relevant context is economists/economic historians or everyone. We don't write hard-science articles on Wikipedia as though it's "everyone", why should economics/econ. history/biography of economists be different?

Bkalafut (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm interpreting WP:UNDUE in this context as not being about how minority Klein's views are. Fortunately, I don't think we need to figure that out for this article. I agree with Jcrav2k6 that the point for this article is that criticism from one book shouldn't be given large weight in an article on an economist who there's whole lot of other stuff to write about. I suggested putting it in the Chile section because that seemed most relevant to me. Putting it somewhere where Klein's arguments are supported (and criticized) by others in the natural context of the article would make the most sense. If there's a better place to put it, I'm all for that. What I don't think is appropriate is devoting a section to the book, full of pros and cons. If we get to the point that we need to balance things by quoting people responding specifically to the book by Klein, that indicates to me we've gone past WP:UNDUE.

More specifically, responding to Bkalafut, I'm sure it can be tricky sometimes to figure out the set from which one is deciding "minority" or "tiny minority", I don't think that's relevant for this article. Friedman was an economist, but was also a prominent public intellectual/philosopher and activist in encouraging certain economic policies. All that certainly opens his biography article up for non-economists to get into the mix. Cretog8 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Krugman / Schwartz

Urg, criticism sections are a problem, aren't they? I don't think it makes sense to devote a great deal of space to criticizing a criticism. In this case, I don't think Krugman's criticism is of the kind that needs any rejoinder which isn't already in the text of the article.

If Schwartz's response is necessary (again, I don't think it is), it should be handled differently. The quote itself comes down to saying, "Krugman has no standing to comment on this matter and is mean." So, the quote isn't necessary. Also, Schwartz may be more prominent than her co-author Nelson, but it's inappropriate to leave him off. So, if necessary, how about just following Krugman's quote with, "Edward Nelson and longtime Friedman colleague Anna Schwartz contest Krugman's qualifications to make such comments." Cretog8 (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, criticism sections are often problematic and tricky to deal with.

Thanks for the suggestion and I've added proper credit to Edward Nelson to the NBER paper.

I am always reluctant to remove a criticism in a Wikipedia entry just because I think it is wrong or has no ground. This is why I included the concluding paragraph in the Nelson Schwartz NBER paper. The problem of leaving Krugman's quoted text without a response is it will give Krugman unnecessary credit when none is due (as shown by the NBER paper).

Given what Nelson Schwartz concluded in their paper, does Krugman's criticism still merit such an extensive quote as if he is an expert in monetary economics or Milton Friedman? – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I know less about monetary economics than Krugman on his worst day, so the substance any of those disagreements between Krugman & Friedman/Nelson/Schwartz is beyond me. I'm looking at Krugman's quote in the article, which isn't about monetary economics. It places Friedman in the history of economic thought. I think it's a good quote because it captures what I think is a common opinion (can't say how common) in the field. So, for this article, that quote from N&S is a non-sequitur.

Other quotes could be found more directly aimed at that Krugman quote, but I don't think anything's to be gained from doing so. The quote is clearly a matter of opinion, and so can stand on its own (given that it remains a small piece of a lrge-ish article).

At least, it can stand on its own unless (as would be better) it, or something like it, is integrated into the text of the article (possibly in the public policy positions section?) Cretog8 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Nelson & Schwartz quote has lots of weight as Schwartz has worked with Friedman for years and is an expert in monetary economics. Note that in N&S, it was stated "In Section 6, we refute Krugman’s claims that a liquidity trap characterized monetary policy in the Great Depression in the United States in the 1930s and in Japan in the 1990s." So the talk of Great Depression in Krugman's article is related to monetary economics.

I personally see no merit in keeping Krugman quote, but out of respect of a fellow Wikipedia editor who took time to add it, my compromise is to add the N&S quote. A workable alternative is to remove both the Krugman quote and the N&S quote completely and reference both sources simply.

Ultimately, I hope there isn't a dispute of Schwartz (and possibly Nelson) as world-respected monetary economist and her NEBR paper speaks for itself in refuting Krugman's claims. After all, the N&S paper (31 pages of solid content and 10 pages of references) should be sufficient to convince someone of the problems with Krugman's claims, I doubt I have the ability to debate or explain the issues any better than N&S. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 05:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple problems.

1. As I say above, the Krugman quote is an opinion, and is clearly so. It's obviously an opinion that Friedman would have disagreed with, and it's no surprise that Friedman's close colleague and many others would disagree with it. So there's no point that I can see in adding a response that, "X says Krugman is wrong."
2. If one did want to add such a quote, the N&S quote isn't the right one, because K's quote isn't about monetary policy.
3. Including a response to a criticism that is as long as the criticism itself is problematic. It also starts a possible chain-reaction. K responded to N&S's paper, and N&S replied to K's response, but we don't want to go there.
4. It's not up to us to decide who's right. You've decided who's right for yourself, but it doesn't matter in deciding what goes in the article. Cretog8 (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Krugman's critique and Nelson & Schwartz's response are now referenced instead of quoted. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 04:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The new change clearly doesn't work, since it doesn't include any of the substance of the critique (or the defense). If it's really important to include the defense by N&S, then here's a possibility--we can expand the critique by K to include stuff about monetarism, and then the defense which says that K doesn't know enough about monetarism will have context.

I really want to revert this back and start fresh. While we work it out here, I'm just going to revert back a bit and edit the way N&S's response is presented, so the presentation is neutral. Cretog8 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, the problems with the N&S quote itself remain, but the presentation of the quote is now neutral. What do you think about expanding K's quote to include more on monetarism? (I also switched the citation to the more canonical published version of their paper--the quote itself didn't change from the working paper.) Cretog8 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The neutral tone of N&S presentation is good.

Krugman wrote "In the aftermath of the Great Depression, there were many people saying that markets can never work."

Let me include two of Krugam's quotes from the article here for our discussion,

• Start of first quote

"Although A Monetary History is a vast work of extraordinary scholarship, covering a century of monetary developments, its most influential and controversial discussion concerned the Great Depression. Friedman and Schwartz claimed to have refuted Keynes's pessimism about the effectiveness of monetary policy in depression conditions. "The contraction" of the economy, they declared, "is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces."

But what did they mean by that? From the beginning, the Friedman-Schwartz position seemed a bit slippery. And over time Friedman's presentation of the story grew cruder, not subtler, and eventually began to seem—there's no other way to say this—intellectually dishonest.

In interpreting the origins of the Depression, the distinction between the monetary base (currency plus bank reserves), which the Fed controls directly, and the money supply (currency plus bank deposits) is crucial."

• End of quote

• Start of second quote (This part appears right before Krugman wrote, "In the aftermath of the Great Depression, there were many people saying that markets can never work.")

In his 1965 review of Friedman and Schwartz's Monetary History, the late Yale economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin gently chided the authors for going too far. "Consider the following three propositions," he wrote. "Money does not matter. It does too matter. Money is all that matters. It is all too easy to slip from the second proposition to the third." And he added that "in their zeal and exuberance" Friedman and his followers had too often done just that.

A similar sequence seems to have happened in Milton Friedman's advocacy of laissez-faire.

• End of quote

Based on the above quotes and other parts in the Krugman article, I took Krugman's claims about the Great Depression and the market are partly based on his understanding of monetary economics, and those are makes the N&S quote relevant.

As I don't wish us to enter into a protracted and time-consuming debate here, I suggest we leave both quotes in. As an aside, I don't think Krugman (or other critics) or Nelson & Schwartz (or other defenders) should really have more quotes than what we have already. Ultimately, this is the Friedman entry, not the Krugman or Nelson & Schwartz entry.– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 14:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo Quality

Is this the best photo we can find of Milton? It's aspect ratio is off and frankly it is unbecoming. There used to be a much nicer photo here, but I assume it wasn't allowed under the rules. But I'd prefer no photo to this one. JoelMichael (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to Resolve Neutrality Problems

I have again flagged this article for lack of neutrality since my earlier flag was deleted without discussion. Let's be clear: whatever your opinion of Friedman and his ideas, there is no doubt that he is a controversial figure, and people visiting Wikipedia should know that. Stating that critisicm is already presented or that you feel the article is balanced does not justify deleting others' tags or comments when dozens of contributers clearly feel that the issue is unresolved. Having said that, I hope that we can be mature and have a thoughtful discussion.

There are clearly strong feelings about Naomi Klein's book (The Shock Doctrine). IMO, The CATO response to the book that is linked in an earlier discussion is not sufficiently persuasive to discredit Klien's work. First, the cato response is built almost entirely on straw-man arguments that refute ideas that Klein never even wrote. Second, the cato response relies on an index for measuring economic freedom that they developed at CATO (which is equivalent to saying that "we're right because these numbers that we made up say so") and which is far to broad to deal directly with the issue at hand (the index, for example, includes strength of currency and protection from aggression as measures of economic freedom--countries discussed in Klein's book would clearly do poorly on these measures even if they had no government regulation at all). Finally, while Klein's "Shock" premise may be highly debatable, her account of the consequences of the application of Friedman's freemarket principles are verifiable and well documented--much of the book tells the story exactly as I learned it in my International Development class in college. You cannot dismiss the criticisms of Friedman in this book becuase the supporters of Friedman disagree. History is history, and Wikipedia is not the place for Orwellian revisions.

Including Edward Nelson and Anna Schwartz's criticism of Krugman's criticism is a bit absurd. Should we also include Krugman's response to their criticism. Moreover, the response is insubstantial and juvenille. The quote from Krugman is primarily one of economic history, on which he is a highly qualified source. Paul Krugman is a very highly respected author Princeton economist, and including irrelevant criticisms of his criticisms in an effort to marginalize his very mainstream views is an intentionally deceptive manuever. Therefore, unless someone has a good reason to keep the Nelson/Schwartz comment, I will delete it.

Jdstany (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As can be seen above, I'm with you on the Nelson&Schwartz response to Krugman. It should be removed as a non sequitur, if nothing else. The rest I find trickier, but I'll try to keep an eye on your changes and proposals. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It sounds like you're suggesting a partial rewrite of the "Chile" subsection to lay out Klein's position more substantially, with less emphasis on the CATO refutation. I think WP:NPOV would be advanced by such action. Let me know if you need help copyediting. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And I took the liberty of removing the Nelson and Schwartz criticism per above discussion. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no CATO refutation in the article. Further explanation of Klein's position would give undue weight to her opinion. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag is based on a misunderstanding. Friedman himself was a controversial figure with a very strong set of policy positions that many opponents disagree with (many intellectuals are like that). But the POV tag is used only is the text of the article is controversial, and no evidence has been presented that even one paragraph is POV--that is that it fails to represen t the debate. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this article looks pretty neutral to me. From reading the above critique, I think the section on Naomi Klein's book is under dispute. Jdstany, is this the only remaining issue? If so, how can we move to rectify it? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears there is another issue concerning the lack of attention paid to the effects of Friedman's ideas in South America. Apparently, they didn't work. --Patrick (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the POV tag is based on honest disagreement, rather than misunderstanding. I think this article reads fairly neutral, in spite of some bits that skew. However, I'm not sure that the overall neutral reading makes for a neutral article. The thing is that Friedman was a controversial figure, and quite happy to embrace controversy. I don't think this article makes that clear, and that might be a POV problem. For instance, in the lead, it could say something like, "Although many of his policy proposals are still considered radical, he lived to see some of his laissez-faire ideas embraced by the mainstream." CRETOG8(t/c) 05:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's a good sentence but I'm just picturing debates in the future about the use of his ideas still being considered radical. The point would be moot if we could find a good source that said that his ideas are still radical, but after playing around searching, I couldn't find one. My suggested sentence is "Although many of his policy proposals have been considered radical, he lived to see some of his laissez-faire ideas embraced by the mainstream." --Patrick (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. My assertion is not that the current writting lacks neutrality, but that the article fails to provide adequate criticism for such a controversial figure with such controversial ideas and that the content is therefore biased. Unfortunately I am in the middle of moving so all of my books are in boxes, which is making it difficult to find the references that I want. While I do feel that there should be a sub-section within the criticism section on Klien's book, I think that it is even more important to present critisicm of his ideas in general. Many credible economists and historians believe that the widening income inequality, deregulation scandals, weakining labor/union movements, apparently growing corporate corruption, no-bid government contracts, environmenal abuses, and unprecedented corporate influence on policy (energy policy is a well known case) are directly attributable to the the application of Friedman's ideas. Also many (perhaps even most) economists think that Friedman's auto-pilot monetary ideas were a total faiure (even Reagan abandoned this approach after a few years). There is virtually no mention of any of these critisicms in the article. Jdstany (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. What if we revisit this topic in a few weeks when you get unpacked? --Patrick (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than pinning all evils of corporate malfeasance on Milton, why not discuss the merit of the idea he championed in the actual article of the idea itself? I think summary of general criticism specific to his own idea and how criticism specific to his idea does or does not contribute to overall criticism of Laissez-faire capitalism is sufficient. For an example using the same standard about neutrality criteria based on opposing views of the broader class of idea instead of presenting one specific to the article itself, Ludwig Von Mises should also have criticism section devoted regarding merits of the broader idea he may or may not have been attributed to but it does not. If it is the criticism of the broader idea that must be presented, present about the criticism of the broader idea in the article devoted to the idea itself, not in the article of the proponents or the opponents. If one must present the criticism of the person, let's present all facts. Milton Friedman was repeatedly interviewed saying that he is not an classical libertarian. He stated that he is against externalities that corporations may impart (e.g. pollution), and that the proper function of government was to adjudicate such cases where externalities existed. For both even a casual YouTube search shows his views on the two items. Blaming Milton Friedman's primary idea for the wave of corporate corruption lacks any basis on causality. Corporate corruption can occur under many circumstances under varied criteria of corruption. Same goes for corporate influence on policy. Income inequality is again under same category. In summation, you are making sweeping generalizations about Milton Friedman and his idea without considering any of the views of the man himself (interviews, articles, books: i.e. his own word). Be specific about the infractions of the man himself (and his primary idea, not of ones who implement) if you have verifiable source. After all this is the article about Milton Friedman, not of free-market capitalism.--Dchem (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Recent improvements to the lead section look good, but per WP:LEAD it should be a max of four paragraphs. Needs some tightening up and slimming down; I'll see what I can do if I find the time. Probably better if someone else gets to it first, as I'm not familiar with the nuance of Friedman's controversy. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen :) -FrankTobia (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's a bit too long. No need to go into details like "According to The Economist,". This is required in the article body, but the lead should be concise - a summary. And what's with the 13 word wikilink? Morphh ^(talk) 22:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"""I trimmed about 1000 bytes of minor stuff. Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little bit more, hopefully not removing anything too vital. Morphh ^(talk) 0:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of current crash in Iceland?

Funny, no one has updated the entry on Iceland to mention the complete collapse of its economy... I wonder why?

Iceland's Economic Meltdown Is a Big Flashing Warning Sign http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/19205

Funny how a Friedmanite "economic miracle" so quickly becomes "economic meltdown"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just waiting for a good source to reference. I'd accept Z magazine as a source of left-wing opinion/analysis, but I'm not sure that the link you have above is really from Z magazine, and it would be better if the source was more mainstream. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Z Magazine is not considered a reliable source. Additionally, this crash in Iceland has come some 24 years after Friedman's visit and 17 years after "Friedmanite" policies were first put in place. Maybe the crisis should be blamed on Egill Skallagrímsson instead?radek (talk)

If it comes down to it, we can take Z Magazine to a reliable sources discussion. Note my qualification above, however. It's a reliable source of left-wing opinion/analysis, just as Reason is a reliable source of libertarian opinion/analysis. For the moment, it's moot since I'm not sure about the provenance of the source above. As to the timing, the current framing of the Iceland section highlights recent history by drawing distinct attention to "economic freedom" indices in 2004 and 2008. The implication is that Friedman's influence is at least partially responsible, even after 17 years. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Z was already discussed on reliable sources and the answer was that it's not. I might be wrong - maybe I'm confusing it with the discussion on some other talk pages. Part of it is that's not just left wing, but very left wing (to the left of the Nation, Mother Jones, etc.). I guess we could use it with some qualifications like "in extreme left-wing opinion it is argued that..." or something. But that raises questions of undue weight, due to the 'extreme' qualifier. The issue with the timing is not just about the more recent 2004 and 2008 indices. If there was some influence, then why did it take 17 years for it to have this adverse effect? And the crisis is occurring in many different economies, which have had very different policies. In all honesty I don't see how Friedman and the present situation in Iceland are at all relevant to each other. It's really just a common instance of 'hang bad economic outcomes on your least favorite economist, whether they deserve it or not' (and it's not just Friedman. People try to do it to Keynes all the time too).radek (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand -- Friedman's ideas get the credit when Iceland is doing well, but not when Iceland crashes. I'm impressed with the intellectual dishonesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

128.40.192.31, can you come up with other references? CRETOG8(t/c) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm,

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12415730&CFID=36468871&CFTOKEN=23056596

and

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11900731&CFID=36468871&CFTOKEN=23056596

Thanks, do we find The Economist to be sufficiently mainstream?

114.31.155.185 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Orpus

Neither of those articles mentions Iceland, so I don't think they work in this specific context. (I also have some issues with The Economist as a source, but fortunately that's irrelevant for this.) CRETOG8(t/c) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

stagflation and accuracy

There's a line in the lead, "He rejected the Phillips Curve and accurately predicted that Keynesian policies would cause "stagflation" (high inflation and low growth)." The "accuracy" part of that statement has been repeatedly challenged, though it usually remains in. The line isn't ref'd, and doesn't directly mirror material in the main article.

While there should be reference in any case, I think the point of contention is the combination of "Keynesian policies" and "accurately". I think most folks accept that he successfully predicted the possibility of stagflation, which was important. It's not clear to me without some good refs that most people accept that Keynesian policies caused stagflation. If it's not very widely accepted that Keynesian policies cause/caused/could cause stagflation, then that line needs to be qualified. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a suitable quote from Krugman in a footnote: "In 1968 in one of the decisive intellectual achievements of postwar economics, Friedman not only showed why the apparent tradeoff embodied in the idea of the Phillips curve was wrong; he also predicted the emergence of combined inflation and high unemployment...dubbed 'stagflation.'" Paul Krugman, ‘’Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of Diminished Expectations (1995)p 43 Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref. I'm still not quite comfortable with the sentence. Later on )pp.46-47), Krugman says, "On average the economy should more or less achieve the natural rate, but it may oscillate wildly around it; one may still advocate Keynesian policies to try to stabilize the economy." I'd suggest instead of the sentence that's there currently, we use, "He rejected the Phillips Curve and accurately predicted "stagflation" (high inflation and low growth)." That leaves in the accurate, but takes out the cause. If we want the cause, I think the wording will have to be much more careful, and possibly come out of the lead. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The new version, "He rejected the Phillips Curve and accurately predicted that Keynesian policies then in place would cause "stagflation" (high inflation and low growth)." is still not careful enough. I've just skimmed Friedman's AEA address (should be freely downloadable), and it reinforces the impression I have--Friedman's recognized accurate prediction was that stagflation was a possible thing. This is very different from being given credit for predicting the cause and onset of a specific period of stagflation. He might have done so, but I haven't seen the source yet which recognizes it. So, again, I recommend saying he accurately predicted stagflation--or perhaps better he "accurately predicted the possibility of stagflation". If he predicted that specific Keynesian policies at a specific time would cause stagflation then we'd need strong evidence (a) of the prediction, (b) of the prediction being recognized as occurring and being accurate, and (c) the specifics of which Keynesian policies were to blame--and then we could put in something like, "accurately predicted the Fed's loose money standards of the early 1970's would..." CRETOG8(t/c) 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in the world of prediction "predicted the possibility of stagflation" is the same as "predicted stagflation." He gave every indication he expected staglfation to start happening, not as a theoretical eventual possibility but as a reality in the near future. Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Afroghost (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)== Discourse on Friedman regarding his policies and the current global financial crisis. ==

Hi,

I believe it is time to start off a discourse, and ultimately a section under this article head about the connection between Friedman's theory and the present crisis in the markets.

Orpus (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Orpus

No. Afroghost (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Economics is not science; despite his own opinion, Friedman's infobox shouldn't give the impression it is.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish ethnicity

What is this bullshit? I'm Italian, he's russian, he's puerto rican, he's jewish? You've got to be kidding me. There's no jewish ethnicity just as there's no catholic or christian ethnicity. You can't be a little pregnant and you can't mark the ethnicity box with 'jewish' for the same reason you can't mark 'muslim' or 'catholic'. Fix this nonsense.

From Jew: A Jew is a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group. According to this article, then, you are mistaken. Unschool 07:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish" has always been an ethnic designation regardless of the person's religion. See Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups p 151 Rjensen (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Abortion?

In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman writes "The children are responsible individuals in embryo and a believer in freedom believes in protecting their ultimate rights." Is this an anti-abortion stance? Should mention of Friedman's abortion views be included in this article or are they irrelevant given that he was an economist and not a politician? Slepsta (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Friedman a Fascist Economist?

I can't think of a better example of fascist economics or of a fascist economist than Milton Friedman. Too spineless to admit it or take resopnsibility for the barbarism enacted based on his teachings. Broadly speaking, fascism is a breakdown of Capitalism's normal operating dynamics, and the need for a dismantling of civil society to allow a barbaric kick start - profit at any cost. Dressed up as something else, this is all Friedman's teachings amoount to. Strip away the wasteful, annoying trappings of a civil society which isn't profiting anyone, bleed it until you squeeze the very life out of it. How far do you have to look for a dozen examples of this? BadCop666 (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop the polemics and give citable examples. Examples that are non-partisan (as much as possible). Comments like this detract from legitimate criticisms or any earnest discussions. --Dchem (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)