Milton Friedman has died

[Aristophanes]

One of the greatest economists of the last century, and, frankly, ever, has died.

Forbes has the scoop

Friedmann on the War on Drugs:

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve. Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault. Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

Friedman was a pioneer of freedoms political, economic, and, consequently, social. He inspired political revolution in the United States much the same way Friedrich Hayek and Ralph Harris inspired the Thatcherite revolution.

[Garbarsardar]

It's ironical that his more lasting influence on economic practices would please more Keynes than himself. I am talking about the income tax system he pioneered and implemented in the fourties...

In his own words:

"It never occurred to me at the time that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom. Yet, that is precisely what I was doing. Rose has repeatedly chided me over the years about the role that I played in making possible the current overgrown government we both criticize so strongly."

[JP226]

It's ironical that his more lasting influence on economic practices would please more Keynes than himself. I am talking about the income tax system he pioneered and implemented in the fourties...

if im not mistaken, Friedman was a keyensian in the forties and then realized the errors of his ways in the early fifties.

[TheKwas]

Coming from a unionist and a left-libertarian(anarchist), he is certainly one of the greats.

[ErikinWest]

I was very saddened to hear him pass away.... I think Milton Friedman was the most outspoken free-market economist. His easily understandable and eloquent way of describing free markets allowed him to make a good PR representative for the free-market cause.

While it saddens me that I will never be able to meet or talk to him, he is highly documented appearing on many TV shows and his own ten part documentary series. That, and I think that his ideas and beliefs will live on, so really he has a long time to live still.

Erik

[RusskiSoldat]

Promoting purely laizzes faire economics is nothing short of promoting cruelty and abuse.

[Aristophanes]

Promoting purely laizzes faire economics is nothing short of promoting cruelty and abuse.

How much do you actually know about Milton Friedman?

Cruelty and abuse like all the millions who have died at the hands of many economic systems, but never free markets? Cruelty and abuse like the permanent underclass spawned by European and North American social programs: blacks in the US, natives in Canada, and Muslims in Europe. Cruelty and abuse like that? Or the cruelty and abuse where every person is free to follow his own lights, and strive as much as he can to push his limits? It's funny how many people glorify it when it comes to athletics, but demonize it when it's brought onto the economic stage.

[Spork Wielding Spartans]

Except that without some sort of check on the free market, the people smart and/or ruthless enough will sooner or later establish themselves so well that it is almost impossible for any one else to compete.

Competition through an free market is a great thing for society, but it hurts individuals so the individuals who figure out how eliminate competition which is bad for all.

Just look at the state of business in America at the beginning of the 20th century.

[gigagaia]

Let's all be nice please...
And if you can't be nice, be warned...

[Last Roman]

meh

I think the economic history of the US has showed that a purely free market is far too unstable. Sure, a laissez faire economy will fix itself eventually, but as Keynes said "in the long run, we are all dead"

I do however, admire his social liberalism.

[JP226]

there has never been a purely free market in the US

[Lee1026]

there has never been a purely free market in the US

And there will never be. Not unless if you can figure out a way to give everyone in the US perfect information about the FUTURE.

[Aristophanes]

And there will never be. Not unless if you can figure out a way to give everyone in the US perfect information about the FUTURE.

Of course, with such an inclusive definition of 'freedom', there's really no point discussing 'freedom' at all, now is there?

[Lee1026]

He is the one that said Purely free market.

When economists say purely free market, they have a mind a set of very specific criteria. The problem is, one of those is "perfect information". Without this condition, market economics can be sometimes undesirable.

[Aristophanes]

He definitely said that, and, in-so-far as we ought to impute an unvarying degree of literalness to discussion, your correction is quite appropriate.

[RusskiSoldat]

And that is relevant because __________?

[RusskiSoldat]

Cruelty and abuse like all the millions who have died at the hands of many economic systems, but never free markets? Cruelty and abuse like the permanent underclass spawned by European and North American social programs: blacks in the US, natives in Canada, and Muslims in Europe. Cruelty and abuse like that? Or the cruelty and abuse where every person is free to follow his own lights, and strive as much as he can to push his limits? It's funny how many people glorify it when it comes to athletics, but demonize it when it's brought onto the economic stage.

The free market can't kill because it's not a living entity.
The very fact that ever greater liberalization of the market leads to an increasing wealth gap and the permanent creation of an oligarchy should be evidence enough, but seeing as how you appear to lack the ability to connect two event chains (or are willfully denying the obvious), there seems to be little point in arguing with you.
Social programs don't create an underclass, they give the existing underclass certain necessities and oftentimes luxuries that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy.
The notion that everyone was happy during the Industrial Revolution and then the socialists ruined it through various forms of welfare is laughable.

[Aristophanes]

The free market can't kill because it's not a living entity.

Then how can it be guilty of abuses? Isn't that something living entities do too?

The very fact that ever greater liberalization of the market leads to an increasing wealth gap and the permanent creation of an oligarchy should be evidence enough

You'd have to find me evidence that this was true, then that would be evidence enough. Perhaps we have different standards of evidence: you believe that I should see everything you see as true as self-evident; and I believe that simple statements, lacking any supporting facts or reasoning, aren't proof of anything.

but seeing as how you appear to lack the ability to connect two event chains (or are willfully denying the obvious), there seems to be little point in arguing with you.

You're trying to 'connect two event chains', but you're not giving me any basis that could, using even the most generous definitions of proof, substantiate anything.

Social programs don't create an underclass, they give the existing underclass certain necessities and oftentimes luxuries that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy.

Well, that's your opinion; however, there seems to be a remarkable correlation between government expenditures on housing, welfare, employment insurance and health care in an area and declining real economic output, increasing crime, and increasing dependence on government programs. In most cases, government spending precedes the increases in crime and poverty. If you've ever seen the reservations in Canada, know the history of the ghettoes in the United States, and in Europe, you wouldn't be so sure of yourself.

Tell me, during which period was there higher income growth amongst blacks, 1940-1965, or 1965-1980? [btw, I'm talking real, inflation adjusted income growth] The answer seems counter-intuitive.

The notion that everyone was happy during the Industrial Revolution and then the socialists ruined it through various forms of welfare is laughable.

The old canard. The problems in the Industrial Revolution have nothing to do with free markets, which, btw, didn't exist in most IR era nations, and far more to do with demographic factors such as plummeting infant mortality and a vast influx of low-skilled people to the cities. And, btw, conditions weren't the same in America, for example, as they were in the UK and Russia.[a more extreme example]

[Erich von Manstein]

The timing of his death couldn't have been more fitting. The man is (rightfully) respected and credited for bringing about the end of the interventionist "mixed" economies in the '70s and yet passed away in a decade when the government has forgotten his message. The Republican Party has indulged in amounts of deficit spending that would make any Keynesian proud (albeit in areas they wouldn't necessarily approve of) - although hopefully they'll go back to their roots after the midterm election defeat. The victorious Democrats are already spouting off interventionist rhetoric, with talk of increasing the minimum wage, rolling back Bush's tax cuts, and imposing protective tariffs on imports into the US. Virtually no politician is espousing the ideals that Friedman and his predecessors championed - keeping the government out of the lives of the people, especially in the economic realm. It's probably fitting that he died before having to see his life's work possibly rolled back. But if economists go to Heaven then von Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard will be happy to see him.

[Last Roman]

The Republican Party has indulged in amounts of deficit spending that would make any Keynesian proud

Keynesian policy doesn't call for deficit spending, it calls for gov't intervention in times of recession and inflation. Not the same.