Talk:Milton Friedman/Archive 3

Adding Klein book to "Further Reading" section
I am re-adding Naomi Klein's book, Shock Doctrine to the further reading section. An editor recently removed it with a non-reason "we've talked at Klein at great length" ... and? It is ridiculous to have four books written by Friedman himself, and two recent pro-Friedman biographies that weren't nearly as widely read as Klein's book, and then claim that her book which is written at the same time is not relevant. The only reason that it is not relevant is because of the clear bias of the editors here. Whether you think that the events that Klein chose to discuss are important or not, the fact is that this is a NY Times bestselling book by a prizewinning journalist and Miliband Fellow who lectured at the London School of Economics. The book is well-researched and extensively covers a wide range of topics that the other biographies that we have listed here don't touch because they are too busy fawning over Friedman. I'm not even arguing for balance in the article itself, which I feel is probably as hopeless as asking for balance in Israel. I'm just asking that we mention a source that covers a large array of topics sorely neglected by the other sources mentioned -- namely the historical consequences of Friedman's ideas.

As far as the claims of WP:Recentism from User:Stepopen, I'd recommend that he read that page. This has nothing to do with "recentism" -- recentism has to do with recent events, not recent books. Citing a book that was written a few years ago is not recentism -- especially when the majority of that book is talking about events that occured many years ago.

I don't want to be involved in the drawn out argument that has taken place above. If you don't agree with this -- please stay focused on why this book should not be added to the Further Reading section -- I don't want to talk about how dumb you think Naomi Klein is, nor whether you personally agree with her ideas or not. All I want to discuss here is why a bestselling book about Milton Friedman, written by a internationally known economist and journalist does not belong on a reading list for Milton Friedman. Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it is already discussed in the body of the article. Why have it featured prominently in the 'criticism' section only to have it again in the further reading section too? Its redundant and undue weight.  Bonewah (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as being "redundant", each of the books in the "Further reading" list contains information that is "already discussed in the body of the article" -- does that mean we shouldn't include them in there either, because doing so would be "redundant"? Or is it just books that don't support Friedman's views that are "redundant" in this sense? WP:Undue is also not applicable here. Klein's criticisms of Friedman's free-market capitalism are mostly not her own -- this is why she is able to cite hundreds of notable individuals such as U.S. ambassadors, professors, and IMF officials that say the same things. Klein just happened to write a very detailed synthesis of these people's views -- that is when we're adding Klein's book as a reference, we're not claiming that Klein's personal opinions are the reason for doing so: I'm claiming that the opinions of the hundreds of notable people whom she has quoted/cited in her book, as well as numerous well-documented historical facts which are contained in her book and not in the others listed, are worthy of consideration if one wishes to portray a balanced/accurate picture of Friedman, instead of creating a Wiki-shrine. The reasons for listing her book in the "Further reading" section is because it contents numerous relevant facts and opinions from a variety of important individuals, and gives us a more complete picture of who Friedman was. The reason for briefly discussing Klein's personal opinions in the "Criticisms" section, is because her personal views are notable as well.Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the points of both and  concerning whether the book should be in the included in the further reading section. I'm not sure the issue is of great consequence either way.  I did however want to take issue with the statement that Klein's book covers "the historical consequences of Friedman's ideas." It is virtually impossible for a reasonable person to read Friedman and Klein and come to the conclusion that they are talking about the same thing. Almost everywhere Klein takes issue with Friedman she almost completely misrepresents his claims. In other words, Friedman is saying one thing and Klein is saying he said another...and Klein responds to the latter. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "impossible" ... "a reasonable person" ... "completely misrepresents" .... rhetoric ... I've yet to see a response, other than this ad hominem attack type, to Klein's book ... back it up with facts please. Klein is not "saying he said one thing, when he said another" -- she is quoting him, and then discussing well-documented things that he actually did (assisting Pinochet for instance), as well as quoting/citing many people who worked for him, with him, studied under him, or implemented his policies. Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought you didnt want to talk about how dumb klein is? If you want to read a critique of shock doctrine, check out Reason's article here or Johan Norberg's more in depth criticism here.  Also the wikipedia entry for The Shock Doctrine has some good resources, but in any event, this page is for improving this article, not for discussing merits, (or lack thereof) of The Shock Doctrine, see wp:TALK. Bonewah (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear(er) on my reasoning. We mention The Shock Doctrine by name in the article.  We link to its Wikipedia entry. We discuss the contents of the book with regard to Freidman and we cite the book as a reference.  Do we really need to add it again in the further reading section?  Seriously, anyone who is interested in Ms. Klein's work can find out about it here, adding it to the further reading section is redundant. Bonewah (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bonewah -- I've done more research into Wikipedia's policies on "Further Reading" sections, and it appears that the current policy is in agreement with what you are saying -- see WP:FURTHER. So I will not re-add the book to the list of further reading. Sorry about that -- now we both know where to point people if this issue occurs again. As far as the criticisms of Klein that you linked to -- have you taken any consideration into why the only published criticisms of Klein's work are in far-right publications? Scanning through the abstract alone for Norberg's work, I found two errors:
 * Klein argues that capitalism goes hand in hand with dictatorship -- No, she doesn't. She argues that unchecked Friedman-style free-market capitalism does. She does not say that Keynesian-style capitalism goes hand-in-hand with dictatorship, for example ...
 * Friedman condemned the Pinochet regime. -- in public, he said he did, yet for some reason he decided to work as an advisor them ... doesn't sound much like "opposition" to me ... as Friedman and his students were assisting dictatorships around the world, they often talked about "freedom", etc ... but their actions clearly showed that they were what most people would call "liars and deceivers"
 * I've got no doubt that the rest of the paper is as misleading, dishonest, and incorrect as the abstract (probably why this sort of "criticism" isn't published anywhere but far-right publications). I'll read it and continue the discussion in another thread. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jrtayloriv- I would be impressed if you could provide a source to the claim that Friedman was an advisor to the Pinocet regime. He gave lectures in Chile, but he also gave lectures in Yugoslavia and yet no-one would call him an "advisor to the Yugoslavian regime". I also take it that your interpretation of "assisting" is very broad.

The approach we should have in this article is obvious: present Naomi Klein's criticisms in the "Criticism" section, then have the response of Norberg and others so that people reading the article have an understanding of the scope of the debate. It is not the business of wikipedia to be a forum for deciding once and for all that X, but to give readers an introductory understanding to X and the debate about X. One might not like Naomi Klein or Johann Norberg (or Milton Friedman, for that matter) but wikipedia is NOT the place to turn into a battleground for your likes and dislikes. 188.74.111.222 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's called "quote-cutting" and "quote-mining"...not quoting. When I say: "she says he's saying one thing and he's really saying another," I'm saying she is taking his words out of context or is completely saying he meant something by those words that he didn't.  Examples? How about that quote she loves so much... How about her implications that Friedman inspired the invasion of Iraq...yet in all 500+ pages of her book she somehow neglects to mention how the man himself came out publicly against the war from day one. Or how about how she pretends that he supported the IMF policies in Asia...when Friedman was not only a vocal opponent of the policies in Asia saying they led to poverty, he was vocally against the IMF, period.


 * You took issue with Norberg's paper. Well, as one would expect, so did Klein.  She responded on her website prompting a rebuttal from Norberg.  Perhaps after you finish reading that first paper you can follow the link below. (In the rebuttal there is a link to Klein's original response). The rebuttal can be found here. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Milton Friedman
Information concerning subject's influence over Icelandic economic policy as well as some general criticism directed at subject have been continually added and then just as immediately deleted/reverted by opposing editors. J.R. Hercules (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At issue is this edit, and edits similar to this one. Per  the criticism again section above, these criticisms are merely the opinions of random commentators, and not really any sort of scholarly or peer reviewed source.Cite 48 for example, is an editorial from the huffington post, hardly a reliable source for economics.  Moreover, the citations offered never even say in what way Friedman or his ideas are responsible for Iceland's economic woes, for example this cite (54) says only "In the 1990's Icelandic Prime Minister David Oddsson, said to have been an admirer of former British prime minister Baroness Thatcher and the late US advocate of free markets, economist Milton Friedman, privatized the banks which then funded big overseas acquisitions by a small number of people." That is the only mention of Friedman at all.  Others, such as this cite (49) dont even mention Friedman at all. Bonewah (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of this RFC is to engage opinions from editors other than the editors who are already disputing. J.R. Hercules (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this is to reach some sort of resolution, is it not? The individuals involved should be allowed to voice their case. Bonewah is perfectly within his rights to add his comments. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From the very first sentence of Requests for comment:
 * Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input 
 * Seeing as you're unfamiliar with or unwilling to honor Wikipedia policies, perhaps you should therefore take your own advice to "respect the policies of the encyclopedia and move on." J.R. Hercules (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the RfC forbids participants from commenting in the discussion. Further, when creating an RfC, it is good form to link the actual edits, and previous discussion on the topic. Bonewah (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreement with Bonewah - The user J.R. Hercules has consistently added the same or similar content without any regard to the objections made to it. He has been asked multiple times to join the discussion here on the talk page, and yet refuses to do so. Instead he elects to go find more of the same kind of sources, that violate the same premises that have already been brought up multiple times. He ignores the Wikipedia guidelines and the user recommendations and just digs up more of the same kinds of sources to express his personal point of view. It would appear quite strongly that he has much more of an agenda than simply improving the encyclopedia. It seems it is much more important that his personal view and original research be represented in the article. His edits to the article have been consistently removed not because he or the material he adds is being targeted, but because it is content that has not been shown to be worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Instead of providing the evidence to support its inclusion, J.R. Hercules just continues to try to add it. It is he who is not participating in accordance with Wikipedia policy. J.R. Hercules should join the discussion on the talk page and address the comments and challenges brought up by all the users, instead of simply trying to circumvent them by finding different sources that say what he wants to say in the article. And if the content he wishes to add cannot meet the burden of proof for inclusion by Wikipedia standards, he should respect the policies of the encyclopedia and move on. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the criticism that was added to the article did not strike me as particular notable. Neither the person or the media outlet criticing is particulary prominent. And even if it would be I would prefer to see scholarly criticism here in an article about a scholar. The other problem is that the criticism is very lightweight and mentions Friedman only in passing. Pantherskin (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The proposed addition seems to amount simply to the idea that Iceland's decision to privatize banks was inspired by Friedman's free market economics. Well, obviously. Rather than state this in relation to Iceland, it is much more important for the article to give more detail about the influence of Friedman on Thatcherism and Reaganomics. There was a lot of commentary at the time on these connections and there is now an extensive scholarly literature that isn't drawn on in the article. The addition as proposed doesn't enhance the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Its been 30 days and J.R. Hercules' edits have received no support whatever from the RfC participants. I am going to remove the edits in question on the basis of obvious consensus and hope this will be the end of it. Bonewah (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Is There No Bibliography or List of Works?
Why Is There No Bibliography or List of Works for Milton Friedman? Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * well I spent a week pulling it together--it took so long because I loved rereading those classic articles. Rjensen (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Friedman and Iceland
Some information pertaining to Friedman's influence over Icelandic economic and public policy has been included in the |Honors, recognition, and influence section under the "Iceland" sub-section. The passage is as follows:

Rationale is as follows:

1) Placed within the section "Honors, recognition, and influence" as this particular section discusses Friedman's influence and relevant connections to various nations and city-states such as Chile, the UK, Hong Kong, Estonia, and Iceland.

2) The statement In the wake of the 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis, debate swirled around the extent of Friedman's influence over the Icelandic economic policy which had preceded the meltdown is supported by numerous attached references. Clearly, it should be an uncontroversial point to make that there has been much public discussion concerning Friedman's influence over Icelandic economic policy -- influence, for good or ill. The point of the many attached references also serves to graphically illustrate that there was indeed a great deal of debate on the issue. The references actually can even be expanded, as there have been pro-Friedman pieces posted on the Friedman/Iceland issue from various blogs, online magazines, etc.

3) Reference to Michael Lewis (author) article included to buttress edit's relevance and notability: Lewis is among America's most notable financial journalists.

J.R. Hercules (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

chicago boys
Assume good faith. Nowhere did I say Friedman trained or even encouraged them to carry out a coup. He didn't. I listed three facts: (1) Friedman trained them in his economic theories; (2) they participated in the coup; (3) they implemented Friedman's theories. If you don't like the tone/connotations of the text, then edit it and make it better. Please stop reverting it entirely and causing senseless information loss. -- JALatimer 00:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the chicago boys did not participate in the coup, they were brought in afterward. Second, saying that Friedman trained them implies a direct relationship between the chicago boys and Friedman where none really exists. They studied at the University of Chicago where MF taught and (maybe) attended some of his classes or seminars, that is not the same as being 'trained'.  Thirdly, and most importantly, we already cover the Chicago boys in the Chile section saying in much more neutral language 'Chilean graduates of the Chicago School of Economics and its new local chapters had been appointed to important positions in the new government soon after the coup, which allowed them to advise Pinochet on economic policies in accord with the School's economic doctrine.' which is correct, MF was not the only advocate of that style of economics, he wasent even the only one at Chicago, just the most visible. We wikilink to the Chicago boys and even cover some of the more prominent criticism of MF's supposed involvement with Chile.  The passages you are adding are partly redundant and partly contradictory to what we already have, and I think they should not be included for that reason. Bonewah (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"First of all, the chicago boys did not participate in the coup, they were brought in afterward." Not true.

Please stop deleting huge swaths of information. If you feel you can make something sound more "neutral" then by all means do so. Right now you are just edit warring. -- JALatimer 03:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You havent addressed any of my concerns, you have only flatly declared that the Chicago boys participated in the coup, this despite the fact that the article on the Chicago boys makes no mention of this. Further, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, Miracle of Chile, and Government Junta of Chile (1973) articles lack this claim.  More importantly, you have not provided a reliable source for this claim, so I am going to remove it.
 * Additionally, you have not shown why the "Chile Project" was an important aspect of MFs career, or even that he participated in a substantive way. Your insistence on including his 'participation' along with claims that the Chicago boys helped perpetrate the coup can only be seen as POV pushing, you attempt to associate Friedman with the Chicago boys and the Chicago boys with the coup all at once to create an association in the mind of the reader that Friedman had a hand in the coup, which he did not.  Your calls for me to change it to a more neutral wording mask the fact that all the actual, substantial elements of Friedman's involvement are already in this article, so there is no need to try and reword your POV pushing statements as the result would simply be a repeat of what is already here.  Bonewah (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Krugman
I deleted the reference to the criticism of the Krugman article because it was not substantive. Merely saying Krugman "double talks" is not proper rebuttal or summary of the article cited. If someone wants to describe Krugman's discussion of Friedman more, and then create a better summary of the criticism of Krugman's point of view, feel free. Apkchu (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian School criticism
I find the ASC intellectually dishonest. I've read "Free to Choose," and Friedman's only mention of externalities is that taxing people for creating negative externalities (referred to as "involuntary transactions" in the book) is wrong because the government doesn't tax people for involuntarily benefiting from positive externalities. In essence, they make a terrible argument not based in what Friedman actually said. Such criticism is politically motivated or based in ignorance of the subject, so why should Wikipedia include such criticism here? It would be like putting Noam Chomsky's criticism of Milton Friedman here. PokeHomsar (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Free to Choose came after the 1971 Rothbard criticism

"Other Criticisms"
I made a couple corrections to the "Other Criticisms" section. First, Naomi Klein never accused Friedman of direct complicity in the military coup in Chile or Indonesia. She did point out that Friedman's ideological arguments coincided with the interests of various multinational corporations. Also, she and Chomsky both contrasted Friedman's stated ideology with its actual outcomes. At most, this would be tantamount to claiming that Friedman (either intentionally or unintentionally) provided an ideological justification for the coups. While one could possibly argue that providing an ideological justification for an action makes someone complicit in it, Klein does not make such an argument. Second, I also made some corrections to the account of Norberg's rebuttal after reading it. Norberg actually did outright accuse Klein of misrepresenting Friedman's quotes and of linking him to Pinochet's dictatorship, and I changed the language to reflect these accusations. Finally, I cut the word "prominent" out of "prominent libertarian economists." If they're prominent, then you shouldn't have to mention that they're prominent, as their names by definition should be recognizable.
 * Napzilla (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Chicago school
I changed "Chicago School of Economics" to "Chicago school of economics," and "professor" to "leader," to avoid the amusing misimpression that the Chicago School is physically a school, with buildings, professors, and maybe a dean. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

The Article Doth Protest Too Much
In particular, the section on Chile sounds extremely defensive -- first, explicitly stating that he only came at the invitation of "a foundation" (unnamed), without directly mentioning his earlier influence (though obviously trying to preemptively deny any), and then, more hilariously, there is this:

Friedman also met with military dictator President Augusto Pinochet during his visit. He never served as an adviser to the Chilean government, but did write a letter.

What, did someone suggest that he was his adviser? Or is that a commonly-held belief? Maybe that should be mentioned...

Just a thought. 72.86.124.192 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * yea, thats about the size of it. The article used to say "blah blah source says that he was an advisor to Pinochet, but in actuality.." the quote you sited.  It might be worthwhile to say that some think he was an advisor to Pinochet, but in ... the rest of the line you quote.  Bonewah (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
I changed the first paragraph to include the proper name of the so-called 'Nobel Prize in Economics' because though commonly known as such, it isn't a Nobel prize. This is an issue which has caused considerable consternation, as you'll see from reading the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences page itself. The previous usage of 'Nobel Prize in Economics' doesn't seem to have been discussed here at any point, so I changed it. If there was a discussion here, then I would have added to that instead. 90.194.162.246 (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New Picture
The current picture of Dr. Friedman looks a little dated. How about this one?

http://www.utc.edu/Research/ProbascoChair/pictures_clip/Milton%20Friedman%20Greyscale.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.136.122 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that the current picture should be changed, but only because it's obviously distorted -- it looks like it was resized with mspaint to be square (or is it just an HTML resize?). I'd argue that he's most recognized from the era represented in the current photo -- switching to one that's newer would maybe make sense if he were still alive/active, or if it were from a period when he was more recognizable/active, but just being "newer" doesn't seem like a valid argument (for an analogy -- would it make sense to use a shot of Truman signing up for Medicare on his article, rather than a presidential portrait?). 72.86.124.192 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The photo absolutely needs to be changed. The current one is neither properly sized or very flattering; I suspect it may have been chosen intentionally for this purpose. I don't know how to determine the copyright status for the one linked above, so I've just removed the photo for now until someone can add a respectable one. Joel Michael (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it does need to be changed. I've felt that way since it was first used. I also have always liked the black and white "thinker" portrait, but that actually was used for the infobox and got taken down shortly after due to copyright restrictions (I'm not positive if we ever found out who owns the rights, so it was considered not ideal for the Wikipedia). The one up there now is (unfortunately) the best freely usable image available. If you can find a better one, by all means share it.


 * Another idea is to contact Friedman's son David, or grandson Patri and see if either of them has any pictures they'd like to declare free for reuse. I think it's a shame (and kind of a travesty) that there are absolutely no free images available for such a great and well-known figure. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How to pronounce his last name?
How to pronounce his last name?--Happybunny95 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Freed-men". That's what makes it an aptronym. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Image in infobox
I don't think that the image Friedman dinner.jpg should be used in the infobox, as it is of low resolution and substandard quality. I would suggest adding a fair use image, which would be allowed in this context. For instance, there are many WP articles on deceased people with fair use images in their infoboxes, also where there are free pictures of sub-standard quality available (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Murray Chotiner, Harold Pinter). -- Eisfbnore talk 10:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. I don't understand what happened...this image used to be there, and on the upload page it stated that the image was authorized for use on WP. I think the image space should be left blank until a better image is found. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

'Especially in US and UK' comment dubious
the comment in the intro that his ideas have made an influence open bracket especially in the united states and united kingdom close bracket seems highly dubious when it comes to the latter. The prime example would undoubtedly be Australia which has the freest economy of the english-speaking western nations and the lowest overall taxation. Indeed, the United Kingdom since thatcher (Australia's howard reformed the economy to a more economically liberal state than either thatcher or reagan) has undoubtedly been the most socialist of any of the english speaking nations - more in tune with her increasingly socialist european counterparts. Thus I believe this claim is not only unneccesary but also most dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, without a reliable source saying so, i think it should be removed. In fact, i am going to boldly remove it myself. Bonewah (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Chilean Pension Fund
One of his suggestions in Chile was to start a pension fund for the civil service, by putting a few percent of salaries into a common fund. This appeared to work well as was adopted in a number of countries. Perhaps the cocaine cartels launder their money in it? Prudential regulation is a socialist conspiracy, and against every instinct of Friedmanism, so well will never know. The sub-prime loan crash of 2008 is also due to a lack of prudential regulation. In short, the small banks in the US were defrauding the big banks, but this obvious explanation is beyond the understanding of any economist.

The Portuguese dictator de Salazar (1928-1973) must be given the credit for virtually all of Friedman's ideas; he was also an economist. de Salazar cut spending to the level that he could just sufficiently maintain an army to keep him in power. The majority of dwellings in Portugal were being built with pre-Roman construction methods. The same five families who owned the country during the Middle Ages still owned everything at the start of the 1973 revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.73.201 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're just rambling. This isn't relevant or even coherent. Shane (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this criticism relavent?
"After Friedman's death, Keynesian Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, while regarding Friedman as a "great economist and a great man," criticized him during 2007 by writing that "he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work. It's extremely hard to find cases in which Friedman acknowledged the possibility that markets could go wrong, or that government intervention could serve a useful purpose."[55] However, according to economists Anna Schwartz (Friedman's long-time colleague and co-author) and Edward Nelson of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, Krugman "doubletalks throughout his essay", and asked "How can he say Friedman was a great economist and a great man, if he believes Friedman to have been intellectually dishonest""

The reply to Krugman is fallacious. It doesn't take issue with his argument. Rather it takes issue with a minor and non-consequential personal clarification that preceded the argument: Krugman's opinions on the quality of Friedman's character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.36.253 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Krugman himself is fallacious. He is not a credible source. We're not asking The Situation about Milton Friedman, why should we care what a known political hack thinks about Friedman? Krugman is no better than Naomi Klein. PokeHomsar (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Krugman is a Keynesian economist. Friedman and his supporters were more Neoclassical. There are intellectual and political disagreements there. It is the duty of an encyclopedia to report on the opinions of different people, without actually getting on one side or the other.Shane (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

govt spending to gdp
hello i would like to introduce a sentence about his ideal society where he says ta governement spending should be around 15% of the gdp. i have a indirect source(http://greatnewstory.com/home/sustainability/economic/the-genius-of-western-tradition/), but maybee someone has a better source or the video of him saying that (i remember seeing it)--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

public positions
it could be interesting to cut the paragraph to small parts to detail his positions on each issues (for exemple : defense (defense spending, conscription), drug use and prostitution, democracy and institutions ( the institutions he wanted to abolish, plus the mecanism of control of gvt spending such as a constitutional amendment), view on the school system and vouchers, ect ...--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

lead
The lead is too long. WP:LEAD says: "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." It's now six longish paragraphs. If no one else wants to take a try, I'll have a go at cutting it down. Hmm? FurrySings (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * good point. I trimmed it down and condensed into 4 paragraphs. Rjensen (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 3rd and 4th paragraphs are still over-long FurrySings (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "over long"?? not by Wiki rules. He had LOTS of complex ideas and a great deal of influence and so condensing all that to short little sentences suitable for a high school student is a poor strategy. Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve
I think its relevant to include that Milton Friedman was opposed to the Federal Reserve. In his book Two Lucky People, Friedman said that:

"Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes ‑‑ excusable or not ‑‑ can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic ‑‑ this is the key political argument against an independent central bank. . .To paraphrase Clemenceau: money is much too serious a matter to be left to the Central Bankers." Disestablishmentarianism 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's actually mentioned in the lede at the end of the third paragraph. But feel free to be bold and expand it to include your quote. (Be sure to cite it.) --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)