Talk:Milton Friedman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Good article Milton Friedman has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
Archive
Archives
— April 2007


Contents

[edit] Introduction Text

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

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

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


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

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

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

Here is a paragraph that reads like a valentine:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Criticism in Keynes article but not Friedman article?

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

Then write it. Unschool 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that might be because Friedman proved Keynes wrong, and not the other way around, don't you think? --Uriel 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this supposed to be neutral? Friedman has NOT been proved right-in fact many respectable articles say that he is responsible for the current economic disaster.

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

Wouldn't that be a little difficult since Keynes died in 1946 ??? Pawes 9:07, 7 June 2007
A criticism section is not mandatory. If you want to criticize (=have reliable sources) concrete things, do it in respective sections.--Svetovid 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You aren't allowed to criticize Friedman in Bush's America.nut-meg 22:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Friedman was highly critical of President Bush.SecretaryNotSure 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Viola. Today!

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

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

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


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

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] POV

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

Please create a short summary of main POV issues that led you to add POV tag and place it in this section. Otherwise it will not be clear what changes need to be done to the article. --Doopdoop (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I second this request. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We should try removing the tag after one week if there is no reply. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated Peer Review

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

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

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

[edit] Looking for good photos

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

[edit] Neutrality and Criticism

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

Criticism will also need to be extensive, since criticism of Friedman, and even more so of his disciples, is very extensive, probably more extensive than that for any other modern economist.Nwe (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Criticism sections are discouraged in Wikipedia. Can you give a couple of refs so that notable criticism can be incorporated into text (most likely in the Economics and Public policy positions sections)? --Doopdoop (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Only as opposed to criticism properly and widely incorporated into articles, it is far better to have a criticism section than no criticism at allm which is the case in this article. Therefore removal criticism sections on that basis is utterly groundless. Since the establishment of any form of criticism in this article has proved difficult, a criticism is most likely the best, and most easily maintained, way to allow criticism at this point. Your idea that criticism should be "summarised" is also completely wrong. Nwe (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Please try to find some valid criticism and avoid excessive quoting. -- Vision Thing -- 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Simply because you disagree with the criticisms doesn't mean they aren't valid. If you have a problem with the level of quoting then you should try to rewrite the criticism, not remove it completely.Nwe (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You're edits are utterly unacceptable in every way. The incorporation of some criticism that has broken down to the point of meaningless into the economics section violates policies on criticism and its integration into the article. You also changed "free-market economics" back to "economic freedom" without giving any reasons whatsoever.Nwe (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Removal of criticism of him in the article implies such a belief. Summary style is intended for detail that has its own fork, its irrelevant here. I should also point out that these cavils are, even if they were relevant, absolutely no reason for removing all criticism of him.Nwe (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there are only two criticisms given in the entire piece, its kind of hard to say which criticisms are "notable". And since summary style is irrelevant here, there is no need anyway.Nwe (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE states "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Please state which criticisms are most represented among experts. --Doopdoop (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] income tax witholding

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

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