Talk:Milton Friedman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

Hi everyone, i've uploaded some video of Milton that I own the copyright to, it is http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6711886648853095886&hl=en - it is an hour long video of a talk he gave to a conference. Could someone please post a link in the article to this? David

Criticism

Should there be a criticism section? Friedman is hardly a universally beloved figure, among economists and laypersons, and there have certainly been many strong criticisms levelled at him.

Vandalism

Could the petty little person who keeps vandalizing the section about the cause of Friedman's death to read "not having enough heart" instead of "heart disease" perhaps stop doing it? The man is dead, how about giving him a break out of respect for his family if nothing else. We're not vandalizing the entry for Karl Marx. Why don't you leave Friedman alone?

Graball 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

There's a discrepancy in the dates of birth. The article lists his birthdate as being in 1912, but describes him as the last of four children, while his sisters were born in the 1920s. Unless there's an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine, something is amiss. The U of Chicago lists his date of birth as 1912 - could the date of the sisters be incorrect? Thaddeus Ryan 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please post Friedman's correct date of birth. Perhaps an extra decade was added to his biography by his Capitalistic friends, to give his Capitalism stance more credibility. JCIS February 4, 2007

Cut the bad faith crap. http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/releases/4667846.html (I agree with Losh14 that someone might want to check the sisters date of birth...) -- Mgunn 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Influence

Is it fair/right/beneficial to add that Friedman has had a significant impact on the world today by being a key influence on Reganism and Thatcherism? - --81.178.249.234 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed an error, that the book "Free to Choose" preceded the television series. On the other hand, the television series preceded the book.

I removed this passage:

"Friedman's visited Chile in 1975, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Despite the Pinochet regime's policies of torture and murder of political opponents, in 1982 Friedman praised the dictatorship for having put into practice his economic ideas."

I believe this is mostly a myth. See this page for Friedman's account.

More specific URL on the site [here]

Here is a counterargument to what you call a "myth": http://www.counterpunch.org/grandin11172006.html

I believe something should be said about Friedman's classical liberalism and his connection to small government. For instance, he put forward the idea that it would be more efficient to support the poor by just giving them money, rather than setting up bureaucracies for things such as food stamps (the NIT proposal; see

http://www.indiapolicy.org/lists/india_policy/2000/Jun/msg00007.html

)

South Africa

I removed this paragraph:

He however also visited Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in March - April of 1976, two months before the Soweto uprising which was viciously suppressed by the National Party government. On 2nd May 1976 he wrote an article for the Sunday Times in South Africa in which he supported the racist minority government of Ian Smith. Whilst in South Africa he met the State President, Dr N. Diederichs and many of Apartheid's cabinet ministers. Friedman missed the opportunity to criticise the disenfranchisement of the majority of the people of South Africa and Zimbabwe and suggest a simple non-racist one person one vote system enjoyed by the citizens of the West. Instead he chose to suggest amending the elementary schooling system to get whites to pay the same amount that significantly poorer black pupils were forced to pay.

I don't know the details of Friedman's visit to South Africa. That he would have written an article in support of Ian Smith's government seems to me very unlikely. (Can anyone provide the actual text of the article?) That he would have met with members of the government of South Africa seems to me unremarkable. The implication that Friedman is or was a racist is completely unsubstantiated. -- Eb.hoop 11:00, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

South African visit

Please accept my apologises for not referencing properly. I have only just discovered Wikipedia and I am still not quite sure where to put what. Milton Friedman visited South Africa from 20 March 1976 until 6 April 1976. He then visited Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) from 6-9 April 1976. He wrote an article “Suicide of the West – Some impressions of South Africa and Rhodesia” which appeared in South Africa’s biggest Sunday newspaper the Sunday Times on 2nd May 1976. This and Friedman’s addresses to various groups of people during his stay in South Africa were published in a book:

Friedman, Milton. 1976. Milton Friedman in South Africa Cape Town: Creda ISBN 0 7992 0205 3

The comments on the schooling system are to be found on pages 48-49. Nowhere in the 60 pager book does he advocate a one person one vote system, this at a time and in countries that ran minority “democracies” for their white citizens.

I have a copy of the book and would be prepared to fax it to you. Regards Maynardophile 1 January 2005

You're going to fax a book?--Jerryseinfeld 15:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You claim in the disputed paragraph that Friedman wrote in support of Ian Smith's government. I find this very hard to belief. Perhaps you could post the relevant passage here. Furthermore, you imply that Friedman is or was a racist based on the fact that a 60 page booklet published by the University of Cape Town's School of Business after his visit does not contain a denunciation of the Apartheid electoral laws. This does not seem to me appropriate for the body of the article on Friedman. -- Eb.hoop 17:30, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems that Friedman's visit to South Africa at a time in South Africa’s history similar to the timing of his visit to Chile is now not being debated and that we are now just dealing with his article on "Rhodesia". I do not think that I can "post" this article as the book is copyrighted (to Milton Friedman and the Graduate School of Business, UCT). In the interim I belief I have referenced it well enough (replete with ISBN number) to justify an entry similar to the Chilean entry. Furthermore it was publish in a major newspaper where referencing is available. My offer to fax the article "Suicide of the West - some impressions of South Africa and Rhodesia " written by Milton Friedman, stands. In the interests of brevity and compromise I am dropping the last two sentences of my original edit. --Maynardophile 23:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair use laws allow you to quote from copyrighted material. (Otherwise book reviewing, for instance, would be impossible.) Can you just provide us here with a quote from Friedman's article to justify the claim that he wrote in support of Ian Smith's government? -- Eb.hoop 5:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herewith then a summary of Milton Friedman’s article “Suicide of the West” which appeared in South Africa’s largest Weekly newspaper the Sunday Times on May 2, 1976.

He begins the article with “Of the 49 countries in Africa, 15 are under direct military rule and 29 have one-party civilian governments. Only five have multi-party-political systems. I have just returned from two of these five – the Republic of South Africa and Rhodesia (the other three are Botswana, Gambia and Mauritius).”

He goes on to concede that “Neither country is an ideal democracy – just as America is not. Both have serious racial problems – just as America has. Both can be justly criticized for not moving faster to eliminate discrimination – just as America can; but both provide a larger measure of freedom and affluence for all their residents – black and White – than most other countries of Africa”.

Friedman thus glosses over the injustices that where inherent in both South Africa and Rhodesia at that time, injustices that were at there root caused by the disenfranchisement of about 90% of the South African population and 95% of the Rhodesia population. To compare this to the injustices suffered by 10% of the American population, not all of whom were disenfranchised, is disingenuous.

He goes on to boast of Rhodesia that “The education of the Blacks has been proceeding by leaps and bounds. Today, half or more of the students at the University of Rhodesia are Black. Guerrilla warfare from outside the country has produced a reaction by the Government that can properly be described as repressive – but the provocation has clearly been great, and it is important to maintain a sense of proportion. More than half the defence forces patrolling the borders are black. I was told that more Blacks volunteer for the defence forces than can be accepted …. It is very difficult to reconcile that visual impression with any widespread impression of feelings of oppression by the Blacks. If that existed, Rhodesia could not easily maintain such internal harmony or so prosperous an economy.”

Thus Friedman dismisses that 95% of the population have “feelings of oppression” despite their disenfranchisement and a myriad racially oppressive laws against them.

He ends with: “Rhodesia has a freer Press, a more democratic form of government, a greater sympathy with Western ideals than most if not all the states of Black Africa. Yet we play straight into the hands of our communist enemies by imposing sanctions on it. The Minister of Justice of Rhodesia cannot get a visa to visit the US – yet we welcome the Ministers of the Gulag Archipelago with open arms. James Burnham had the right phrase for it: suicide of the West.”

If that is not an endorsement for the racial oppression of the white 5% of the population of the then Rhodesia over the black 95%, then I don’t know what is. I have now provided enough proof of source and my offer to get anyone a copy, one way or the other stands. I am reinstating my edit to Friedman’s biography as I believe that it provides a more complete picture of the political positions that Friedman has taken in his life. --Maynardophile 00:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, which is quite interesting. It seems clear to me, however, that Friedman was simply arguing against the trade and diplomatic embargoes. This was a controversial position (the same position, for instance, held by Ronald Reagan), but what troubles me is the inference that it is equivalent to racism. Friedman seems to have been saying that there were much worse and more repressive governments in Africa and elsewhere which were not being punished in the same way. Also, that the embargoes were playing into the hands of communist, anti-Western insurgencies whereas gradual progress towards freedom and equality could be made by a policy of engagement with the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa. In fact I think that history partially bears out this last judgment. Instead of progressing towards racial equality via normal, democratic processes (like South Africa) Zimbabwe ended up under the much worse government of Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe.

The whole issue still seems to me a bit inappropriate for an encyclopedia article on Friedman. The controversy of Chile clearly deserves to be covered, because it plays a very important role in the public perception of Friedman's career. But I had never before heard anyone comment on Friedman's stance towards South Africa and Rhodesia. It is not our place in Wikipedia to mould perceptions of public figures or make original claims. Your coverage of this issue also seems to me to be at least partly motivated by a desire to associate Friedman (who is Jewish and a libertarian) with the racist strains of conservative politics in the West, which would be highly misleading to someone not familiar with Friedman's work.

I'll think more about the issue, but I suspect I'd at least want to rewrite your paragraph a little bit. -- User:Eb.hoop 2:25 22 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Dear Eb, Thank you for your comments. I am open to how the information on Friedman's visit to South Africa is presented and also happy that you give some thought to its presentation, but his visit to South Africa & Rhodesia in 1976 is the matter of historial fact, recounted in his own words in a book in which he shares the copyright with the Graduate School of Business of the University of Cape Town, who was his host. I am happy that the entry should reflect his reasons for the positions that he took on Aparthied South Africa and Rhodesia but his support for Rhodesia is an important compontent of Friedman's political make up and therefore, I believe, deserves a mention. I am not re-editing the article now, because I would like you to consider a how this information can be presented in a way that reflects a neutral point of point and shows a whole person reflecting his complexicity. Afterall we are all complex beings. See you in a few days time, regards--Maynardophile 19:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saying "X is not as bad as Y" does not mean that one supports X. Kurt Weber 13:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added that "he supported ending the embargoes against Cuba and Apartheid South Africa."

what the?

The 'bio' section reads as follows:

"Born in Jamaica to a working-class family of African AmericanHungarian immigrants from Italy (Berehove, today Ukraine), Friedman was educated at Rutgers University (B.A., 1932) and at the University of Chicago (M.A., 1933). After working for the a brothel and for Columbia University..."

this sounds somewhat...confused. Paul 07:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous version, undoing the work of the very clever and humorous (sic) person who put in the above paragraph. Paul 13:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

I was looking up Friedman for a paper both here and in Brittanica, and I wanted to say that you guys have by far the better article. Congratulations on fine work.

Libertarian template

I put the Libertarianism template on this page because I thought that anyone interested in Friedman would be interested in a quick way of finding information on:

1. people who support his policies
2. similar theorists and authors
3. libertarian-style economics

These are all provided by the libertarianism template. I don't think anyone will disagree that he's one of the most influential libertarian thinkers of the 20th century (vouchers, monetary policy, etc.) and that his positions on just about everything can be described accurately as "libertarian."

User:ExplorerCDT says that "he isn't just a libertarian" and so he should not have the template. I decided to put it to a vote:

• Friedman wasn't only a libertarian, and while the article states that he held "various" libertarian positions, it does not say he is simply or exclusively a libertarian. He is also a monetarist, a die-hard capitalist, among other things...do we require more templates to link him in with other isms and ists? I don't feel it is appropriate, given the circumstances. The template, in my opinion, does not deserve a position of prominence in that it completely takes up the entire left column (resulting in the moving of his picture) and is rather unsightly. If you want to include a template, design a better one, and put it at the bottom of the article...like other templates. Given he wasn't exclusively libertarian, this I would consider appropriate. It's silly to vote on this bullshit. —ExplorerCDT 23:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sharing your opinion. Libertarian positions on capitalism subsume his own, and if you can find me a libertarian that doesn't oppose inflation, then you may have an argument about monetarism. Better yet, come up with anything he's ever said that would indicate that he is not a libertarian. Furthermore, monetarism doesn't have or need a template, so there's no reason not to put it up. Personally, I'm not happy with the length of the template, either, but it's useful. Please make a pretense of being civil. Dave 23:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't oppose inflation (it's a useful tool if managed properly), and I have been considered to possess few strongly "libertarian" views. Does that make me a libertarian? Probably not. But my views on social welfare and government job-creation programs don't make me a socialist either. Likewise, Friedman had a few libertarian views, he had a few socialist views. That doesn't necessarily make him a libertarian as if it were his only label. You can't label a man exclusively based on a few positions, and not the whole. Likewise, one cannot call him a "racist" because of his work in South Africa and his inability to condemn Apartheid. I've talked to the man, he and I have corresponded often since the days when I was in college (we share an alma mater), and libertarian isn't the first thing that springs to mind in talking with him. If there was a monetarism template, do you think it would deserve as much prominence? I'd think it would deserve more, in considering him more a monetarist than a libertarian. Laissez-faire Capitalism is not necessarily an extension of libertarianism, despite it bearing libertarianesque attributes. Redesign the template and put it at the bottom where most people put templates, and I'll support it's placement. I would agree it is useful. As the template is currently, I, and a few other editors I know, will continue reverting attempts at placing it in the article. Only a template on economists would be appropriate in a position of that much prominence. —ExplorerCDT 23:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. Given that you (as shown by your contributions here) are obviously strongly seeking to push libertarians and libertarianism, I would admonish you not to use Wikipedia to push an ideological agenda, it's disruptive to Wikipedia only for the purpose of proving a point and there are rules against that sort of thing. Right now, you are precariously close. —ExplorerCDT 23:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please don't threaten me. I haven't disrupted anything. All this is on a talk page. Furthermore, you have no idea what my "agenda" is. I wrote the vast majority of the "criticism of libertarianism" in the "libertarianism" article (about ten kilobytes), and some of it is pretty damning. I'm not an expert on Chile, but it looks to me like what the Chicago school did there sucked, for the most part. I'm writing about this issue because I want libertarianism to be a featured article, not because I support it. I'm not going to argue with you anymore, but if you're interested in learning what Milton Friedman thinks about libertarianism, I encourage you to look at Talk:Milton Friedman/libertarianism. If you feel you owe me an apology, I'll accept it whenever you're ready. Dave 00:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • If you think that is a threat, you must really have a thin skin and a guilty conscience. You'll never get an apology, because you're just plain wrong...so don't hold your breath waiting. You're the one that wants to paint broadstrokes on a man that is more a Kandinsky canvas than a fencepost...and for such oversimplification, you should be ashamed. —ExplorerCDT 02:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Knowing nothing about this guy I had a little look around. I think he can definately be described as a libertarian and could be tied in with other libertarians, but he is not an integral and essential part of the "series". That is partly informed by the fact that he is not included on the template and, as a general rule, templates are only included on articles they link to directly. In this case the liberterians category is the best method and I've added the box there. Considering there are two different POVs it's definately best to take this to a vote and I think Dave went about this the best way (avoiding a revert war). violet/riga (t) 08:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Friedman is a prominent member of the libertarian movement. He's a moderate, comparatively, but he is a libertarian. Philwelch 00:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support the template:

1. Dave 22:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
2. Philwelch 00:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Eb.hoop 1:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose the template:

1. ExplorerCDT 23:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. PtonJew06 02:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) XCDT is right, and you should listen to him Harry/Dave rather than badmouthing him around on user talk pages. You're the real ass.
3. Explained above. violet/riga (t) 08:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. The template is superfluous; the "See also" section contains the information. Mirror Vax 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PtonJew06 and ExplorerCDT should learn how to behave civilly. Disgraceful behaviour in this discussion. CSMR 19:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Health of Milton Friedman

Does anyone have information on the health of 92-year-old Friedman? Perhaps the article could include some information pertaining to the aging economist's health.

He's almost 94 now and gave a Weekend Edition WSJ interview a few months ago with his wife joining in with spirit. Is it fair that some people just don't seem to age? Thomasmeeks 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've recently exchanged a few e-mails with him and his son, David, because of a project I'm working on, and he's actually in pretty good health right now. He doesn't travel much, just because it's tiring, but he's in pretty good shape for his years and will be with us quite a bit longer. The WSJ interview with Milton and Rose Friedman was about 3 weeks ago. —ExplorerCDT 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Template

I don't have any problem with classifying Friedman as a libertarian - he describes himself that way - but the template needs to be redesigned. It's way too big and obtrusive, and should be at the bottom of the article. The way it is now, it resembles annoying advertising. Mirror Vax 01:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After considering it a bit more, I concluded that the design of the template probably isn't going to change, so it should be removed. The "See also" section should include whatever bits from the template are appropriate, so the template is superfluous. Mirror Vax 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References lacking

It seems to me that there are some references lacking from this page. The first paragraph has a quote in it, but no reference. Vitamin D 03:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This may put the cat among the pigeons, but... Who would not prefer Ian Smith's Rhodesia to Robert (The Butcher) Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

picture

Here's a picture of Friedman on the cover of October Reason Magazine if anyone wants to copy it to the article. [1] Magazine covers are "fair use." RJII 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, WP:FU identifies this very situation ("An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover") as a "counterexample" of fair use (i.e., "almost certainly not acceptable as fair use"). Well, it doesn't appear that anyone used the image in question anyway. Mlibby 13:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

A Google search shows that "Milton Friedman" and "Nobel Prize" come up 108,000 times, while "Milton Friedman" and "Bank of Sweden" come up 730 times. Are there people out there who still say he did not win the Nobel Prize? Wiki policy is pretty clear: "The prize is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics or, more correctly, as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics." Rjensen 16:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"The prize is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics or, more correctly, as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics." (emphasis added) Please do not misslead people into thinking he won a Nobel prize when he won the Band of Sweden prize. As there is no Nobel prize in Economics he could not possible have won it. // Liftarn

There certainly is a Nobel Prize in Economics. Every newspaper, & news magazine reports it that way. The fact that old man Nobel did not fund it is not the relevant issue: it is chosen in similar fashion, and awarded by the King of Sweden in the same ceremony. Everybody knows that.Rjensen 22:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a highly relevant issue. That newspapers and magazines reports it incorrectly is irrelevant. Thruth is not something that is judged by a poll and by the way it's handed over by the king, not awarded by him. It's awarded by Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. // Liftarn

Nevertheless it's highly misleading to refer to it using a different name from that by which it's known by the vast majority of readers. The correct title of the award should be mentioned in the article for the award itself, but in external references it's far more helpful and informative to use the more common name. That's the way it's done on every other article on this site; the article is named in the most useful way, and the correct name is given at the beginning of the text proper. To do anything else is to sacrifice knowledge to pedantry.

Quite the opposite. To call it a Nobel prize when it isn't is clearly misleading. // Liftarn

At the moment it looks to most observers as though he received an award other than the one they know as the "Nobel Prize in Economics". That's not true, but it's the impression the article currently gives. Disputes over the accuracy of the name should be kept to the article on the prize itself.

I have edited to reflect this. // Liftarn

Given that the corresponding wikipedia page is Nobel Prize in Economics, I think that is the term we should use for clarity and consistency. In any case, that article gives (or should give) the relevant details about the prize in question. --Lost Goblin 01:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn, can you *stop* this silly edit war? If you don't like the name of the article go complain in its talk page(but note that this issue has been discussed there already and resulted in the current name). There is no reason other than to confuse people to use a different name in this article. --Lost Goblin 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you stop? It's one thing to shoose a shorter name for an article, but another thing to give missleading information in an article. // Liftarn

The information is not misleading in the slightest. The prize is commonly known as Nobel Prize in Economics, even though its official name is different. Beit Or 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate here to use the shortened form of the name which is the title of the Wikipedia article. The official name is given in the article and the details are explained there. Using an alternate shortened form of the name strikes me as POV. Jwolfe 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that we should use "Nobel Prize in Economics". -- Vision Thing -- 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I utterly disagree. It's not called "Nobel Prize in Economics" so it should not be refered to as such. I find it distastefull that people want to knowingly insert false information in Wikipedia articles. // Liftarn

• I have to agree with Liftarn on this one. This is one area where Wikipedia goes wrong, with the convention to make it the most popular name than the real, true, authentic name. But as to authenticity, just because others do the more popular option (like naming the article Nobel Prize in Economics, doesn't mean we have to. Remember those old lines about "if your friends jump off a the brooklyn bridge..." —ExplorerCDT 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• P.S. if you notice also, the Nobel Prize in Economics article does come out first stating "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel..." —ExplorerCDT 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is called the "Nobel Prize in Economics" in that many people use that name when referring to it. That's not the official name, but neither is "Nobel Memorial Prize". The "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" is commonly called the "Nobel Prize in Economics", just as the "Antoinette Perry Award for Excellence in Theatre" is commonly called the "Tony Award". The editors chose the name "Nobel Prize in Economics" for that page, and the Milton Friedman page is not the place to debate that decision. They have a perfectly serviceable talk page over there. Jwolfe 18:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• So, someone disagrees with you, you tell them to go elsewhere. The audacity. While I agree the discussion can be brought over there, as well as on Naming Conventions and redirects, it doesn't solve the issue here and it needs also to be discussed HERE...whether you like it or not, or it gives you headaches and agita. And for you instructing me or Liftarn to take the discussion elsewhere it means you'd rather brush this matter of accuracy under the table which is shamefully a systemic problem on WP. I don't give a damn what most people refer to it as especially if they're just abbreviating it because they a) don't know the full name, or b.) they just like short stuff they can say in two or three words rather than 10, but if you're going to put a list of awards on an article, as if it were an enumeration in a resume, you should use the official name. For the Friedman article, I propose we state [[Nobel Prize in Economics|Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel]], with the possible alteration of translating Sveriges Riksbank as "Swedish Royal Bank" (which I think it means).—ExplorerCDT 19:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment "I don't give a damn what most people refer to it as..." please see Wikipedia:Naming_conflict. Jwolfe 20:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that section on "Names in articles" really says a lot...and doesn't make me, liftarn, you or Jimbo wrong. —ExplorerCDT 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

May I direct your attention to http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ and notice how the prizes are refered to there: "Nobel Prize in Physics, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Nobel Prize in Medicine, Nobel Prize in Literature, Nobel Peace Prize, Prize in Economics". Notice that the two last ones don't follow the same format. The short form is "Prize in Economics", but that may be a bit too short so "Bank of Sweden Pize in Economics" would work as a short form. Also Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Names in articles doesn't help us much here. // Liftarn

Since I still believe this is not the appropriate place to have this discussion, this is the last I'll have to say on this for a little while. Under Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names, it says:

---

Proper nouns

The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

---

We can check Google to determine:

• "Nobel Prize in Economics": about 278,000 hits
• "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics": about 20,200 hits
• "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel": about 13,500 hits

So, as I read the Wikipedia conventions, "Nobel Prize in Economics" is the appropriate name to use. Jwolfe 03:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Usually the naming conventions are interpreted to deals with naming the article, not referencing something within an article. I frequently disagree with the spirit if not the letter of several naming conventions (after all, they are just guidelines most often). The cause for my disagreements with the naming conventions is simply that it fosters laziness under the auspicies of "most common" at the expense of "most correct." And that aids to one of the misperceptions that Wikipedia is full of errors. Sure it is, and our reputation for it is partly because we've made our own bed. But as long as we're mentioning something (like the Prize) in this article, we should use the official names and get it right. Otherwise, I'll continue to object to this article ever getting to be worthy of inclusion with Good Articles or Featured Articles. There's no excuse for perpetuating an inaccuracy, even if it is a small one. —ExplorerCDT 06:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nobel Prize in Economics" is used in Britannica [2] and Encarta [3] too. Only way for Wikipedia to go wrong in this area is not to use "Nobel Prize in Economics". -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• REPLY I DIDN'T THINK I'D EVER HAVE TO SAY: If they want to be lazy and do it wrong, let them. We should stand out for demanding accuracy, not for joining the crowds of the incorrect and lazy.—ExplorerCDT 17:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's do the table your most recent citation of the naming conventions recommends:

• Option 1 - Nobel Prize in Economics
  
• Option 2 - Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

Criterion	Option 1	Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English	1	0
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	0	1
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	0	1
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Total Option 1 - 1 point
Total Option 2 - 2 points

That says enough. —ExplorerCDT 06:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

also the naming policy mainlt deals with things that have no own will (plants, lakes et.c.), but in this case (just like a person) the entety in question has a will so we should use the principle of self identification. // Liftarn

Proposal and Straw Poll

We have to make a fucking decision on how this "Nobel" crap is dealt with in the article. Because you people are pissing me off and we're going to continue in a reverting war unless this is resolved NOW. I propose the following verbiage for the Lead Paragraph:

In 1976, he was awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (known informally as the "Nobel Prize in Economics") for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.

To be rendered in wikicode as:

In 1976, he was awarded the [[Nobel Prize in Economics|Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel]] (known informally as the "Nobel Prize in Economics") for his achievements...

Considerations:

• We should, for the sake of accuracy, put forth the official and correct names first for prizes before saying "commonly known as". To do otherwise perpetuates an inaccuracy.
• The proposal, per ExplorerCDT, passes the litmus test suggested in Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names (as determined above).
• The minutiae of naming conventions should not hold much weight here because we aren't renaming the Nobel Prize in Economics article, just changing how the subject of that article is referenced in this article. Even the Nobel Prize in Economics starts off with the words....The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel'. So abandon that specious claim that we should perpetuate inaccuracy for the sake of misinterpreting naming conventions because at least the start of the NPiE article corrects the inaccuracy perpetuated by adherance to the naming convention.
• Think. How does Friedman put it on his c.v.?
• Think. How does the Nobel Foundation refer to it?

Submitted, without respect for those who wish to perpetuate inaccuracies. —ExplorerCDT 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Two questions on Proposal 1 before putting in my opinion: 1. Does this mean making the proposed short explanation in the beginning and then go ahead with Nobel prize in the rest of the article? Because that would probably make a workable compromise. 2. In that case, would someone oppose doing it the other way arround, i.e. "Nobel prize in economics (officially called ...)"? AdamSmithee 08:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

A vote to support the above proposal means rendering the text as User:ExplorerCDT proposed.

TO AVOID CONFUSION: do not put any counter proposals up. Just vote this proposal up or down.

1. ExplorerCDT 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Liftarn 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
3. --Caligvla 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

A vote to oppose the above proposal means you don't support ExplorerCDT's proposed text.

TO AVOID CONFUSION: do not put any counter proposals up. Just vote this proposal up or down.

1. That's your view that they are all wrong. Prize is awarded in accordance with the same principles as those for the other five prizes, and under sponsorship and approval of Nobel Fundation. For Britannica, Encarta and most other people, including scholars, correct title is Nobel Prize in Economics. -- Vision Thing -- 18:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
2. For all the reasons I've given before. Jwolfe 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2

We should refer to prize in accordance with usual practice in both common use and scholarly sources [4] [5] as "Nobel Prize in Economics". -- Vision Thing -- 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I don't know why we shouldn't have both polls.

Support

1. -- Vision Thing -- 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
2. For all the reasons I've given before. Jwolfe 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Accuracy should not take second place to laziness, and what VisionThing seems to ignore, the space limitations of print and editorial concerns (which comprise most of what google scholar quotes...here we're not confined by paper or space). He ignores accuracy, and the admonishment not to confuse people with counter-proposals, so I both oppose his counter-proposal and his having made a counter-proposal. —ExplorerCDT 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Liftarn 19:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3

This is not the right place to decide or even discus this issue.

This issue exists at least in each article for all winners of the prize and should be resolved once and for all.

This very same issue was already discussed at length in regards to the name of the linked article itself: Nobel Prize in Economics and the resolution archived there should either be made standard or be changed. People with an agenda should get over themselves and accept whatever is decided, we certainly can't have the same argument again and again every time the prize is mentioned in any article.

Please lets move this discussion to Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. --Lost Goblin 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is an attempt to discuss how the prize is to be referred to within the Milton Friedman article. Your proposal is counter-productive and disingenuous in that that doesn't solve this problem here and is a deliberate attempt to avoid the issue. Accusations of "agenda" and "ego" are equally counter-productive and disingenuous. STRENUOUSLY OPPOSE. —ExplorerCDT 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously, since I suggested it before. Jwolfe 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. You are right, this discussion belongs there. -- Vision Thing -- 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is not the appropriate place for this discussion. Beit Or 08:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support An encyclopedia should have a consistent convention for the naming of this prize, used on all pages. To use a different name here would convey the idea that Friedman had won some prize different from what others have won. And that reeks of POV. Calling such an observation "disingenuous" is absurd. We need a standard name for this prize, which might well be a template to produce the technical verbiage suggested above, for all winners thereof.The Monster 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism and Freedom

Why isn't this book mentioned at all except at the end? I'd venture to say it's his most popular writing. I'm going to put it in the beginning. Uhgreen 14:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

date of death

i just wanted to mention, that afaik, he died on Nov 16th. in the first line of the text - and in the table on the right as well, the date is 15th, which is, according to my knowledge, incorrect --Stardust.sk 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Salvador Allende

A reference to Salvador Allende's "democratically elected government" was removed on account of the fact that the Senate appointed him as president. I would say Allende was democratically elected, since his party received the largest share of the vote in the 1970 election in Chile. He had to be appointed by the senate because his share of the vote was less than 50%, but he still won a democratic election, and I suspect this edit is a bit of politicking by someone of a US Republican persuasion. Unless of course it's being suggested that any vote of less than 50% is invalid... in which case George W. Bush wasn't democratically elected in 2000, and Tony Blair has never been! MFlet1 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Anti?"-Communists

I had edited this paragraph (see below), removing "Anti-Communists" and placing "Communists" instead. I think I just misunderstood the intention. It should probably be changed back. The paragraph is at the end of the article.

"Friedman also traveled to Hong Kong to give lectures, meet with government leaders and encourage them to adopt free trade and implement free-market policies, which led to criticism from Communists. He also advocated ending trade embargos against Cuba and Apartheid South Africa."

199.8.16.1 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Adam

I reverted your change, he was invited and welcomed by communist China to give a series of lectures there, which pissed off anti-communists in the US. --Lost Goblin 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

is this right?

The article states "In addition, he headed the Reagan administration committee that researched the possibility of a move towards a paid/volunteer armed force, and played a role in the abolition of the draft that took place in the 1970s in the U.S." This does not sound right - might they mean the Nixon administration?

Good catch, I fixed it --Lost Goblin 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo: abondoning -> abandoning

There is a typo in the following sentence (in bold):

"...he wrote the article Hong Kong Wrong - What would Cowperthwaite say? on Wall Street Journal, critizing Donald Tsang, Chief Exective of Hong Kong, for abondoning "positive noninterventionism" in his 2006 Policy Address."

Please change to 'abandoning'.

Janet Friedman?

My local newspaper mentions a Janet Friedman, supposedly a daughter, also surviving him. I've only ever heard of David and Rose. Any ideas?

Yes, I can confirm it. --Lost Goblin 11:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

ditto to Lost Goblin. —ExplorerCDT 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

???

He couldn´t have been the fourth and last child of his parents when his sisters were younger than him...

85.207.50.182 13:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Ed

Should Friedman's death be noted on Main Page?

Please comment at Template_talk:In_the_news#Please_add_Friedman.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

I think we should include comments by pro-free-market writers. If there are comments by anti-free-market writers or other Friedman critics, include those too.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

• Mr. Friedman was the great economist of our time, who more than anyone saved the economics profession from dogma. [6]

I put in a similar quote the other day, but I think it was deleted. --Uncle Ed 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that quote because it seemed to me that it is better to put sentence "he is known as one of the most influential economists of the 20th century" instead and source it to the newspapers like "The Washington Post" and "The Economist", rather than to have a random quote from "The Washington Times". -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Legacy shouldn't just be a series of quotes by pundits but a serious encyclopedic treatment of the subject. —ExplorerCDT 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you: those are useful explanations. --Uncle Ed 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I put the Good Article nomination on hold

I put the GA nomination on hold for the following reasons: The article, while is starting to be better written, has many improvements still remaining to be done. It needs better structure. It doesn't cover the issue of Milton Friedman well or as intensely as a good biography should. I suggest looking at the Rutgers Magazine article (here) recently published for biographical details that are missing and correcting some that are incorrect. A lot of things aren't done within Wikipedia's Manual of Style. We need references to make this article pass the verifiability test. Article isn't really that broad in its coverage, in fact, much of the substance of a discussion about the corpus of his work is noticeably absent. The article regrettably hasn't been stable since his death, because some insecure, anonymous, and disrespectful people have sunk to vandalising it. Article needs better images, especially if we get into a discussion of some of his economic theories (a MUST). Now, I really like Milton Friedman, and would echo the call for a GA marker...just like I'm arguing for Rutgers (which both Friedman and I went to for undergraduate work) to name a building after him, and to get a statue erected of him (my project for the last few months). I knew Dr. Friedman personally, exchanging correspondence and discussing things with him for almost 8 years right up through the last few weeks. I would, more than most any of you, like to see this as a GA or even Featured Article...but...it's not ready yet. Perhaps we can correct these things within the next seven days that I've placed the GA nomination on hold. —ExplorerCDT 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

it's curious that no one has ever done a serious biography of Friedman. His autobiography helps a lot of course, but it's not critical in the sense of tracing the influences. Rjensen 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is a puzzling question. But then again, there hasn't been a biography of many 20th century figures (Robert Frost and Robert Lowell immediately come to mind) until after their passing...and a bad ones at that.) —

• What this article still needs: (1) More in-depth discussion of Friedman's contribution to economics and finance. (2) Discussion of Friedman's contributions to popular issues (draft, marijuana, school vouchers, anti-communism). (3) Discussion/interpretation of his writings. (4) Better biography (I'll probably have to transfer some of the information from the Rutgers Magazine article cited above, I bet no one has even looked at that link yet). Just a few things (there are more, but these are prime). —ExplorerCDT 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

By now, this article should be taken off hold, and passed or failed. Twinxor t 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I mentioned a source (Rutgers Magazine article on him) that has details this article is lacking (an in some places contradicts)...bet no one's even read the article. Once those are corrected, and I feel other issues mentioned above adequately taken care of, then I'll say "sure" Right now, it should be failed. It doesn't deserve a pass at this time until the above issues are taken care of. —ExplorerCDT 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to jump on the "do something" bandwagon now myself, as I was curious about this on the GA list, it's been on hold well over a week. Homestarmy 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to be bold at this point and just delist it. It's been on hold for quite a while, and once this improves more, the regular editors can decide to relist it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Friedman and Eastern Europe: important after 1989

Some historians of the fall of Communism in E Europe give Friedman modest credit for influencing economists before 1989-- for example Shock Waves: Eastern Europe after the Revolutions. by John Feffer 1992. Page 128. But no one proclaims his influence to be major in causing the overthrow of Communism. Indeed Friedman gets no mention at all in major histories such as Dissolution (1999) by Charles S. Maier; no mention in Exit-Voice Dynamics and the Collapse of East Germany: The Crisis of Leninism and the Revolution of 1989 by Steven Pfaff. There is no mention of Friedman in The Political Economy of State-Society Relations in Hungary and Poland: From Communism to the European Union by Anna Seleny. Scholars do say he was influential AFTER 1989 (for example Surge to Freedom: The End of Communist Rule in Eastern Europe by J. F. Brown p. 97)Rjensen 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will be reverting tomorrow with sources. Try to remove it then, dumbass. —ExplorerCDT 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Which image to use?

A couple of editors have removed the free (but small) image, and replaced it with a non-free (but higher quality) image. Unfortunately, this is not allowed. Our fair use policy says "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. . . If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." I know that professional, non-free images may look better, but we have to follow our policy on the matter. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• However, there is a fair use policy that permits us to use a copyrighted image when there's no economic loss to the copyright holder, when no decent alternative can be had. While nice, I don't think the "free" image is a decent alternative. —ExplorerCDT 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement for image quality -- only that the image provides the same information. It doesn't have to be as pretty. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Since we have the free one, is there any reason to even have the unfree one? Shouldn't the unfree one be replaced everywhere and deleted? -- Jonel | Speak 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The only objection I have to the current image is that Friedman is portrayed very old and barely recognizable. A more canonical image would be something like this.[7] Beit Or 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, you're right. I wish we had a free image that shows him in his prime. Perhaps someone could e-mail the copyright holder to a better image, asking them if they would be willing to release the image under a free license. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I've nominated the unfree image for deletion. Nomination page. -- Jonel | Speak 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Nope, in the previous image Friedman is not even recognizable and is one of worst images of him. You know that by yourself but you keep complaining, I see some political biases there... I ll finally post a film screenshot if you finally convince others to delete it with your poor argument about the existanse of another "free" one! Wikipedians plz pay some attention before the deletion of another image.
                • Image:MiltonFriedman.jpg is a good quality image. Please actually read the nomination and look at the replacement image before making wild accusations and vague threats. -- Jonel | Speak 16:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • I sincerely apologise Jonel. I had Image:Friedman_dinner.jpg in mind. (I would sign this but I m not registered at wikipedia)
                  • I just saw that the image Image:MiltonFriedman.jpg is wrongfully stated to belong to the public domain(see its discussion page). Actually the use of both images require their source to be credited...

1984 television debate in Iceland

http://dagskra.ruv.is/streaming/sjonvarpid/?file=4339003

Here is a link to a televesion recording made by RUV, of a debate which is mentioned in the article on Friedman. It includes Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson who later became the president of Iceland.

It was recently rebroadcast on RUV, however it will only be available for a couple of days, so maybe somone who knows how to could upload it to a video upload site, and the post the link in Miltons articles.

Scholarly Contributions & Criticism?

Firstly, for such an influential economist, I think this section could be expanded. Secondly, why is there no Criticisms section? I think this article focuses a bit much on his personal life and accomplishments and not enough on his intellectual ones. Dont have time to help now, but perhaps later. Please reply if you agree or disagree. -- greek lamb 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've agreed with that sentiment...also his impact on political issues (the draft, etc.) are not adequately covered. That's why i put it's rise to a "Good Article" on hold. Sure, I'd love to see this as a GA or FA, but right now it is not ready. —ExplorerCDT 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. For good overview, Alan Walters' article is a good reference. Friedman sells short his and Msiselman's work, for which Jerry Jordan's piece might be a good corrective. Friedman's WSJ article is a masterpiece of clarity. Thomasmeeks 02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Economist quote

Wikipedia rules state: "Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted." [emphasis added] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"only when the purpose is to comment" --whwre is that in the rules? Rjensen 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Fair use: Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. -- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture Vandalism?

The main picture posted in the bio table is incredibly unflattering. I hope this wasn't intentional but it seems odd to skip over his more famous portraits in favor of a rather obscure one. A quick Google Images search offers much better (as well as MUCH more recognizable) options. Bouchacha 06:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This picture is free, and those on Google Images are not. If you have a free picture of better quality, please upload it. -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone changed it already --Bouchacha 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Drug War

Wasn't it Milton Friedman who told Bill Bennett the drug war was lost? http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/milton_friedman.htm 68.12.160.167 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture is fine

Picture is fine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.194.52 (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Power of Choice

Power of Choice: the Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman is one PBS tonight. (for those of you who can get it) --Kalmia 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bring to Featured Article Status

In honor of this most treasured friend of freedom, who recently passed away, let's bring this article up to Feature Article status! All Male Action 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The section "Federal Service 1935-43" contains link to National Resources Committee, which leads to some institution in China. I guess it's a wrong link, isn't it?

Also the sentence starting with "Friedman spent the 1954-54 academic year..." looks like a typo to me.

Nazgul02 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Chilean dictatorshit

"Friedman advocated that freer markets led to free people, and that Chile had an unfree economy which led to the military government, which then implemented open economy policies. These policies led to the end of military rule and a "free society".

Thats bullshit, 'cause Friedman was a corporativist!. --190.46.221.155 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have not read anything from Friedman, or heard him speak. --Uriel 01:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

While Friedman certainly did many things wrong, he is still undoubtedly an expert on many economic issues. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Text

Almost all of his famous theories have been disproved in academic circles (for all you anti-academic right wing conservatives, try to remember that Friedman was himself an academic), all of the Friedmanite experiments in South America were complete disasters, and he had almost no influence on American economic policy, which was why he was always disgusted with Washington. It takes more than the Economist, a severely biased English magazine without citing any sources, without even publishing the author's name (standard practice at the Economist), to back up a claim that he was most influential economist ever and put it in the opening paragraph.

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

____

The first sentence contains a "citation needed" tag concerning the fact that Friedman was a public intellectual. This is hardly in dispute. A brief review of simply the number of other citations from popular sources should suffice to satisfy the curious. Can Wiki get meta and cite its own citations list as a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.244.189 (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

"Then write it." What a stupid thing to say on a "discussion" page.

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.

Please don't leave anymore comments, there's not enough room here for childish op-ed-ing.

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)

• And yes, we all know that economics is a true science and that any practitioner would be a genuine scientist. Milton Friedman was an advocate of a political point-of-view, with political assumptions that he embedded into his economic analysis - as any advocate of a particular economic behavior would be. This is the same equivalent as calling a Christian evangelist, a bio-physicist... To advocate market-liberalism, whether right or wrong, would negate any scientific objectivism, on the very basis of its endorsement. (I don't mean objectivism in an Ayn Rand sort of way). I guess you really have no idea what the scientific method is. Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You are meshing Friedman's pantheon of work into one category. This is a mistake. Friedman himself will explain. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2009 (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: [8]. 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[9] 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)