Milton Friedman — a brilliant popularizer, in the tradition of Bastiat and Hazlitt, though a controversial figure among Austrian economists — died today.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5900/milton-friedman-1912-2006/
Milton Friedman, 1912-2006
Previous post: Why Wal-Mart Matters
Next post: Milton Friedman’s Contribution
{ 9 comments }
There’s a good obituary over at the International Herald Tribune which details the controversies and gives a good account of his career.
I think the intellectual status quo of the welfare state can present a formidable headwind. So, even though Friedman had his shortcomings, his ability to popularize free-market ideas can serve as a tacking course towards economic truth. Undoubtedly, he kept many from being simply carried along by socialism
He was my first link to free-markets and freedom. He WAS imperfect, sometimes too cozy with the State, but nevertheless, was still better when it came to personal freedom than the many freedom-haters of the Keynesian and Neo-classist (o neo-fascist) camp.
Both Milton Friedman and Lord Harris of High Cross within a few weeks…
While I am a strong follower of Mises’s economic framework, and as such have substantial, if not severe, disagreements with Friedman and the “Chicago School” regarding several fundamental issues, at least Friedman had the good judgment to realize that increasing the supply of fiat paper money does nothing positive for real economic growth in the long-run. Most Keynesians, I believe, somehow still do not admit this basic fact. From an Austrian School perspective, there were and are many significantly worst economists than Milton Friedman.
Given Friedman’s comment (as relayed by Professor Raico) that he believed Mises was one of the greatest economists that ever lived, Friedman’s theoretical disputes with the Austrian School may be rooted in methodological/epistemological issues more than anything else.
I was fortunate enough to come to economics through philosophy, however it’s unrealistic to expect everybody to follow the same course. Many “laymen” who would otherwise be interested in learning to see through the economic fallacies which bombard them on a daily basis may be overwhelmed by rather recondite methodological controversies and be put off the subject altogether. Often in the public sphere (to borrow a Marxian epithet), the ends DO justify the means, the enemy of my enemy IS my friend, and as such popular writers like Friedman serve a vital function. His life should be honoured by everyone who shares his passion.
Having attended my share of Mises Institute events, I’ve heard Hans-Herman Hoppe call Milton Friedman a ‘socialist’. Moreover, I’m pretty sure I remember Stephan Kinsella defend that statement on this very blog by saying something like – While he liked free markets, technically, Milton Friedman *was* a socialist.
Is this really a sad day? Or are there celebrations going on in Alabama?
Austrian skule,
That is ridiculous, no one at LVMI celebrates the death of anyone no matter how much some may differ with the substance of their scholarship.
Dr. Friedman was a champion of individual liberty and many applaud him for his dedication to that cause.
To even raise such a question shows how little you know about the ongoings in Auburn or elsewhere in the move to provide adequate economic education to the masses.
My condolences to the Friedman family.
Hoppe made the more general point that the
Chicago school, widely regarded today as
radically free-market, actually holds positions
(on money, labor laws, taxation, etc.) that,
in Mises’ time, would have been regarded as left-
wing or socialistic. The point, of course, is
that the consensus of what qualifies as free-
market has shifted far to the left over the
course of the last century. Better to have 100
Milton Friedmans than even one Hillary Clinton,
but the Austrian critiques of the Chicago school
(which inevitably focus on its prime exponent)
are well-taken.
Comments about celebrations in Auburn are
idiotic.
Friedman, my heart is bleeding.
When I was 19 years old, Milton Friedman was my idol. His views contrasted a lot against the political opinions in Sweden. He was the counterpart to John Kenneth Galbraith.
He was the man who learnt me that there is something which is called the money supply and that there is a connection between the money supply, business cycles and inflation.
He opened the door to a more free market policy. I followed his ideas closely when some of them were practised in Chile.
When Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were elected, I was very happy. They were influenced by his ideas. I was in an ecstasy. Now his ideas would have an influence throughout the entire world! God, I must be dreaming! Life was bright and liberty, I thought, was taking over! Everyone who knew me also knew that I loved Friedman. I always talked about him.
I bought his video films with his television series “Free to chooseâ€. My best friend George and I watched those videos. He was not at all interested. My best friend George always started to fall asleep when I started the video recorder. I watched George, hey! Watch and listen! George! And I rewound the tape so George did not miss anything! Poor George, he was really forced to watch those movies.
George and I went to Hong Kong. I really wanted to experience his ideas in reality. I was impressed!
I also read some of Hayek’s work. For a New liberty, by Murray Rothbard, I first read it in the spring 1980. He was too extreme, I thought, in those days, “but still his ideas seemed to be very logicalâ€.
Much later on, in life, I converted entirely to the Austrian School of Economics (I believe in the late 90s).
I, still, do believe that it was Friedman’s ideas that were one of the very great causes for all deregulations and relatively low inflation rates throughout the entire world.
The Austrian School of Economics is a lot more sophisticated than the Chicago School. It has a comprehensive world view, which the Chicago school is lacking. I believe that The Austrian School of Economics is superior compared to any school of economics.
I do also believe that it was Friedman’s charisma as an individual that influenced my heart.
He was a good and nice man, really quite sweet.
Well, life must go on… I am so sorry…
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Comments on this entry are closed.