Talk:Milton Friedman/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Lead

The lead is too long. It is against the policy of not more than 4 usually-sized paragraphs. (See here for guidance on paragraphs[1], also [2])

Even after I edited the lead, it is still longer than the lead for most biographies. Please add what ever you feel needs to be added, but please don't revert outright as I worked hard to remove several redundancies. FurrySings (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticsm

Krugman's argument that Friedman believed that "markets always work" is a straw man argument. He was well known, and quoted multiple times for saying that the market was the "least worst solution", never claiming it to be perfect. There should be no problem including criticsm concerning his economic or statistical contributions/views, but lets make sure they represent the beliefs of Friedman correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.220.66.20 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion of criticisms, regardless of their accuracy, is more than appropriate. If one is to objectively observe the criticisms that exist about a person or their views, then it is important to include all criticism, whether right or wrong, and whether one would agree with them or not. So while I would agree that Krugman's argument regarding Friedman's conclusions on markets is fallacious and isn't necessarily accurate, it should still be included based solely on the fact that the argument exists. Third parties should peruse the arguments carefully and decide for themselves who they agree with.--ZTFulkerson (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
"Third parties should peruse the arguments carefully and decide for themselves who they agree with." Sounds exactly like something Friedman would say, LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rail88 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

President Reagan

"conservative president..." changed to "Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan." We do not have a conservative party and Reagan was a complex figure who cannot easily be summed up as "conservative." What we can agree on is that he was nominated by the Republican Party. Further discussion of the conservative vs. Republican issue belongs elsewhere. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Public policy positions

There doesn't seem to be any logical progression to the topics covered under this heading. I'd suggest re-ordering them, and grouping them more thematically. "Federal reserve," "Public goods and monopoly," and "Economic freedom" are all economic policy positions; they should follow each other. "School choice," "Welfare," and "Drugs" are all social policy positions; they should be listed near each other. Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.240.20 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, i did the the separations, but it gone wrong, i suggest reorder or cancellation of the sub positions --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Video

I would like your opinion on highlighting the video of famous economist. I try to do that in the external link section, and also linking documentary and public lectures somewhere in the article ( as in walter williams). I guess if someone is enough interested about the article, it would be nice to provide sections and links guiding him to the best videos of the economist (since it is so much more enjoyable to hear him talk to us directly - A picture is worth a thousand words).Any idea on how to build on that ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Anyone interested in further criticism of Friedman may like to see this article: http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/milton-friedman It claims Friedman was involved in backdoor deals with big business and in partnership with some very un-democratic people. 82.32.31.166 (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

it's pretty low grade stuff. It says Leonard Reed had a grant form a corporation when he paid Friedman and Stigler for a 1945 pamphlet attacking rent control as bad economics. Rjensen (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Who removed the section of Friedman and Chile? It's now been reduced to a few lines under the Shock Doctrine section. This is not some theory, he visited and complimented Pinochet on his reforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.220.193 (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree though that the criticism section needs expansion. Friedman's ideas impacted the Western world, particularly the United States, in an unprecedented way. It would be incomplete to omit the many objections to his policy that existed.EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 01:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

removed bogus claim

There was a bogus claim that Friedman's monetarist theory influenced the Federal Reserve response to the 2007 - 2012 global financial crisis, whereas the following text from the Monetarism article goes against what the Federal Reserve response actually was during this time period: "Though he opposed the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman advocated, given its existence, a central bank policy aimed at keeping the supply and demand for money at equilibrium, as measured by growth in productivity and demand." The St. Louis Federal Reserve Excess Reserves chart website proves that this is not what was being done. (72.53.3.229 (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Obscure Friedman criticisms

I have reverted a change added to this page [3] that said "Friedman's views have been characterized as "socialistic" by attorney Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian anarchist thinker at the Ludwig von Mises Institute" (+ref) due to the fact that it is too obscure to warrant inclusion in this biography. MF was a hugely important thinker and lots and lots of people have opinions about his views. In order to include an opinion that someone had of MF and his views we have to demonstrate or be able to demonstrate that the view in question is important to MF or advances our understanding of MF. I do not feel that Stephan Kinsella even comes close to qualifying. Anyone disagreeing should make their case here before adding or re-adding this material. See wp:BRD Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not so much RS, but turns on what Kinsella actually says: "...so whether he is “a socialist” or not I do not know,..." Kinsella uses the term "socialistic" only in the sense that he characterizes anyone who sees a role for a state as socialistic. He clearly says he does not know about "socialist", so we really can't contradict him with a nuance. – S. Rich (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I dont think it really matters what Kinsella says, he just isnt important enough to include here. Again, Friedman is really important and because of this, he generates a lot of praise and criticism. The only way to keep this article relevant and readable is to only include those opinions that are notable and relevant to our understanding of Friedman. Bonewah (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTCh)
This criticism would have some merit if it were consistently applied throughout the article. As of now, we have a ton of "Austrian" pseudo-economists criticisms of Friedman (who, much as I dislike his ideology, is one of the most important economists in the 20th century) in this article. Given the prominent inclusion of Rothbard et al, it only makes sense to include Kinsella. Steeletrap (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all, Rothbard is actually a reasonably important commenter, at least way more so than Kinsella. Second, if your position is that the article already includes a number of criticisms of dubious note, that in no way justifies adding yet more irrelevant criticisms. Our objective it to make the article better, not to rationalize why its ok to make it worse. Bonewah (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, i disagree with your claim that we "have a ton of "Austrian" pseudo-economists criticisms of Friedman". Rereading the article, the only criticisms i see are in the 'criticisms section, Rothbard is mentioned only once and he is the only 'Austrian' that appears anywhere in the article. I see further criticisms from James Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz, and Paul Krugman, none of whom are either obscure or Austrians. The only section that contains anything as obscure as Kinsella is the 'Other criticism' section which contains the opinions of Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, and Orlando Letelier, all of whom are way more notable than Kinsella. Bonewah (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dobbin's critique

My insertion of Murray Dobbin's recent critique of Friedman in particular and the economic impacts of neoliberalism in general was reverted with a request to justify the addition. Per WP:FURTHER, we may include "a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" in the "Further reading" section. I believe that Dobbin's critique includes a well-written brief but scholarly examination of the effect Friedman's ideas have had on the world economy, originally published in a Canadian newspaper and then picked up by Salon.com. The information and viewpoint Dobbin presents are missing from the "Criticism" section of this article, but I chose not to place it there because it is more about the impact of Friedman and his intellectual heirs work than Friedman as a person. I believe that if there is continued resistance to placing this article in the "Further reading" section, then a summary of it should be included to balance the "Criticism" section. EllenCT (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree with Ellen's description of Dobbin's piece as scholarly, it is a worthwhile opinion piece. Placing it in "Criticism" would give it more, and perhaps undue, impact. But adding it as a further reading item, with a brief description, would be okay. – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Housing bubble

How is it OR? The source for the housing bubble peak in the US (Dec 2005) is the preeminent study by Reinhart–Rogoff, and I'm quoting his own words! He totally and demonstrably missed the just enormous housing bubble in the US, so where's the OR? Just a bunch of Friedman-lickers who can't bear to have their free-market hero shown in a negative light. He missed the worst recession since the Great Depression, claiming to the contrary that the US economy had never been in better shape—again, just as an $8tn housing bubble was at its absolute peak!! That is assuredly a criticism worth including, so why is it being banned? LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Friedman in his one-minute comment did not mention the housing market and did not make any predictions about the 2008 financial crisis, which took place years after he died. Nor did he predict how things are going in 2013. Scholars like Friedman are evaluated by reliable sources who deal with his scholarship, not his offhand comments on TV shows. Wiki rules require balanced coverage of reliable secondary sources that evaluated that Rose interview, not one editor's heavy-handed POV personal "gotcha" allegations.Rjensen (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This is simple really, the policy on Original research, specifically Synthesis says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." In this case, A is the Rose interview, B is the Reinhart–Rogoff housing bubble study, and C is your notion that he "totally and demonstrably missed the just enormous housing bubble in the US" Bonewah (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, simply moving the same OR to the criticisms section and claiming it is a "Pertinent example of what Krugman was talking about" [4] is still very much OR. Again YOU are the one reaching for a conclusion, not Krugman or some Reliable Source. Bonewah (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It's straight up OR and SYNTH. I would also not use a source like that as it's essentially an opinion piece. Volunteer Marek  15:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Take 2

Hey, someone said take to talk. I added it before, maybe it was discussed then, don't remember and too lazy to check now.

So: Friedman and the Great Recession. What are the WPs that are leading to its removal? Best etc. LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this explained right above?  Volunteer Marek  17:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve

I think its relevant to include in the Federal Reserve section 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 07:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

BRD re Austrian School criticism – Undue? Fringe?

The following paragraph has been subject to deletion, restoration, reversion, etc. It's BRD time:

In 1971, [[Austrian School]] libertarian economist [[Murray Rothbard]] criticized Friedman's efforts to make the government more efficient as detrimental to individual liberty, concluding "...as we examine Milton Friedman’s credentials to be the leader of free-market economics, we arrive at the chilling conclusion that it is difficult to consider him a free-market economist at all."<ref>Murray Rothbard, [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html "Milton Friedman Unraveled"]. Originally printed 1971 in ''The Individualist''. Reprinted in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, Fall 2002.</ref> Friedman's position on governmental control of money changed since 1971 when this criticism was made.<ref>Ebeling, Richard. M., [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp "Monetary Central Planning and the State, Part 27: Milton Friedman's Second Thoughts on the Costs of Paper Money"]</ref> In a 1995 interview in ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]'' magazine he said the "difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction." He said he actually would "like to abolish the Fed," and points out that when he has written about the Fed it is simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists.<ref name=bestofbothworlds/> {{tl|Liberalism sidebar}}

Editors ought to look at Archive 2 as well before commenting. – S. Rich (talk)

What are the objections to the passage? It seems accurate to me. EllenCT (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello EllenCT. Rothbard's words are ad hominem and published by affiliates of Rothbard. Surely there's much cogent criticism of Milton Friedman. Indeed, there is much published criticism from a mainstream Austrian perspective. This bit is just a fringe rant, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Ellen, The problem is that Rothbard is fringe, and that LewRockwell.com and The Future of Freedom Foundation are not reliable, mainstream sources for economics. Steeletrap (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Does "mainstream" = tunnel vision? Isn't "fringe" an unwarranted criticism that would better be described as heterodox or alternative? In any event, don't the Austrians have criticisms about MF? If so, encyclopedic summary style writing from the mainstream Austrian perspective should be added. But simply removing the section does not comport with the goal of balancing the article/encyclopedia. It should be restored and tagged as undue or for re-writing. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
So, Specifico, since "...there is much published criticism from a mainstream Austrian perspective" why are you removing the subsection? The empty section template invites other editors to contribute. – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Your remark, on a talk page concerning a Nobel Laureate academic, boggles the mind: "Does "mainstream" = tunnel vision?" It makes no sense. Could you restate that please? You're free to find RS discussion of MF by Austrian or anyone else. Find RS content and add it to the article. Adding a blank section when you don't have any content for it is disruptive. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:TPA Specifico. We develop articles in Wikipedia. You said there is mainstream Austrian criticism. So perhaps you have access to it and can incorporate it in order to improve the article. Actually, removing the template, which gets indexed for other editors to review and work on, is disruptive. (See WP:TAGGING.) My comments about mainstream and fringe were rhetorical. Steeletrap referred to WP:FRINGE, which is not pertinent, and the refusal to publish in one set of media. The refusal to do so does not make his commentary non-RS. Nor is "affiliation" a reason to remove material. We evaluate RS based on how it is used in context ."Fringe" also suggests that any Austrian view is not worthy of comment in the article. But you, yourself, said there is mainstream content. So which is it? Is any Austrian criticism fringe and/or non-mainstream, and therefore should be removed? Or is there Austrian criticism that is worthy of inclusion. Of course, the second alternative is the best answer. Therefore a subsection in the article is warranted. Setting up the subsection and tagging as empty is a proper and necessary step in building the project. – S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Following the suggestion in TAGGING which says "If the person placing the tag has explained his or her concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate." I ask you why is the empty section tag, placed on the subsection, inappropriate? – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
First, a really quick search shows that other reliable sources mention Rothbard criticizing Friedman Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers (Bloomsbury), Civic Liberalism (Rowman & Littlefield) or compare their views like Liberalism, (U of Minnesota Press). And here's another article with Mark Skousen discussing a Friedman criticism of Rothbard. Adding that general context and range of issues and a Friedman reply or two would make it a more solid paragraph.
Friedman is admired by many libertarians, his son is a well-known radical libertarian, Rothbard is a great influence on modern libertarianism and doubtless more book mentions/articles about the Rothbard and Friedman criticizing each other exist. Therefore Rothbard's criticism is noteworthy, no matter what a couple editors' personal views on Rothbard's alleged "fringiness" might be. (Someday I'm going to have to find my originals of the opposing comments Friedman and Hayek wrote to me about a monetary theory article of mine I sent them that had been published in a small libertarian publication. Hope those don't constitute conflicts of interest! ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Carol, what does anything you mention have to do with economics? Rothbard's argument against Friedman is ad hominem; namely, that he is not a 'real 'libertarian.' Concerns with sourcing aside, I don't see what this has to do with his economics. Moreover, I think it's fair to say that an instructor of economics at a small engineering school (who refused to publish in academic journals), is hardly the best source we can find for criticism of MF. Steeletrap (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The real editing question here is how do we go about improving the article? Removing sections, which would better be tagged UNDUE, is not the way we work. One editor says there is mainstream Austrian criticism. So let's have it. There are editors who say they have knowledge about these subjects. They ought to step up to the bar and improve the article by adding that mainstream material. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Sources were more about economics; but his status among libertarianism is an issue in general as the relevant section and "series" boxes indicate. So more on that can be added in relevant section since there's lots of WP:RS on it. To improve the article of course. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the Rothbard criticism should be made clearer, rather than just a denial that Friedman should be considered a free-market guy. Another sentence of Rothbard reasoning is called for. Regarding the complaint that this material is fringe, Friedman's response naming Rothbard shows that is not true. Certainly Rothbard holds a minor opinion but Friedman thought it was important enough to reply. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Friedman also replied when the waitress asked him "one lump or two?" Please review policy as to fringe and undue content. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Specifico. I'm sure we can find some good material to conform better to source as Binksternet mentioned. There's more than enough to support such a paragraph. It's on my list of one of these days when I catch up on my own stuff, unless someone beats me to it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
These last two comments (and others) fail to address the issue presented in this thread. What edits are needed to improve this article? Please discuss. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Bink, your reasoning is so goofy that it is almost surreal to read. Applying it logically, we have to say that the hundreds of people who Friedman responded to in "letters to the editor" of his Time magazine articles, not to mention hundreds if not thousands of others who received email responses to him, should all be included in the article.
It is commonly understood in academic circles that one does not respond to fringe attacks. To do so would lend credence to the fringe argument. The only time an academic responds to a fringe argument is if the damn thing is on fire in the media, and if silence is seen as more harmful. Surely this is not news to you. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You travel in academic circles, Mr. Bink? Source? SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be ridiculous to engage you on this trivial matter of common knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, Rothbard's article is a polemic demeaning Friedman. It has nothing to do with academic economics. His main point is that Friedman is 'not a real libertarian,' which is an ad hominem argument. Consider the conclusion to Rothbard's article, replete with name-calling and other, more subtle personal attacks: " we can no longer afford the luxury of this intellectual sloth. It is high time to identify Milton Friedman for what he really is. It is high time to call a spade a spade, and a statist a statist."

Steeletrap (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard can be quoted as saying he thinks Friedman's attitude toward monopolies is practical, and a welcome change from the trust-busting of Simons, but that Rothbard fears Friedman might suddenly return to his roots and attack monopolies. Rothbard can be quoted saying Friedman is too egalitarian, too friendly to the concept of income tax, and is responsible for establishing withholding tax, which Rothbard admits is the only reason the income tax system has not failed. Rothbard calls Friedman's proposal for guaranteed income, a sort of automatic welfare payment for the bottom percent, the "the single most disastrous influence" of Friedman. Most of the Rothbard piece is about this proposal, which did not pass in any event. Other Rothbard criticisms of Friedman include longstanding doctrinal differences such as Friedman's explanation for the Great Depression being that the state did not sufficiently inflate the money supply. Of course Rothbard's stance is that the market should have been left alone. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The little economic analysis (if I may use the term liberally) in the article is used to buttress the ad hominem argument. Again, see the conclusion as well as the title of the paper, "Milton Friedman unraveled"; it's about Friedman personally, not economics. Steeletrap (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, even if you can find an article of Rothbard's whose criticism of Friedman is not ad hominem, it shouldn't be added to the article. We are talking about a Nobel Laureate and arguably the most notable economist of the 20th century. There is lots of criticism from eminent economist to be found, but a limit to how much space we can devote to it in the article. Why on earth would we waste this space on the fringe rants of a (then) instructor of economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, who refused to publish in academic journals? Steeletrap (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, once the right material is put in there from sources far more reliable than any editor's (or 3s) opinion, we can discuss and/or seek other opinions on it. Otherwise this discussion is just tendentious at this point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you arguing for or against inclusion of the passage? I think there is a value in showing that Friedman had both more and less extreme critics, but the idea of censoring their points of contention seems worse than not mentioning that they exist. You are upset because of what was said? If so, which comments in particular? EllenCT (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure who you are addressing, but I want to keep in the highest quality/best material from Rothbard. I just haven't studied everything mentioned above yet. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 07:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ellen, there are two editors here—Specifico and Steeletrap—who despise Rothbard and his followers. These two editors have been working for nearly a year to diminish him on Wikipedia. This little quarrel on the Friedman bio is part of that larger effort. They will argue that Rothbard should not be mentioned at all in this biography. Me, I don't have a horse in this race. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it seems to me that anyone who despises Rothbard would want to show that he was more extreme than Friedman. EllenCT (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Ellen, it's just a matter of WP:Undue. Criticism of Friedman needs to be published in this article. But Bink wants to cite an article by a fringe figure (libertarian anarchist who refused to publish in academic journals, rejected the testing of economic theories and the application of the scientific method to econ) whose thesis is ad hominem; namely, that Friedman is not a 'real libertarian' but is an "intellectual sloth" "statist" and opportunist. This criticism was published in Rothbard's personal journal rather than an academic journal. I don't see why such drivel deserves space that could be reserved for mainstream economic and political crticisms. Steeletrap (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Then you probably want to add more specifics to the paragraph summarizing [5] than delete the dead-enders' squabble, which is a hallmark of what I believe you would be trying to highlight about Friedman and Rothbard both, no? EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Steeletrap, that's twisting things around quite a bit. You're showing your hand—trying too hard to reduce Rothbard. What we are looking at here is that Friedman discussed Murray Rothbard a significant amount in his Reason interview. In simple numerical terms, he said "Murray" four times, "Murray Rothbard" three times, and "Rothbard" once. He said that there were two influential libertarian groups, one headed by Ayn Rand and the other headed by Murray Rothbard. Equating Rand with Rothbard makes Rothbard pretty important, eh? He said Rothbard "like Rand, was a cult builder and dogmatist." He said Rothbard was always "nasty" to Friedman and his work, which explains why he didn't ever want to hang out with Rothbard. Friedman says he has had more political influence than Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard because both of them were so intolerant. All of this goes to show that Friedman was very much aware of Rothbard for decades of his career. It shows that this article has plenty of room for something about Rothbard in it. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on your summary, if we mention Rothbard at all, it would only be in the context of insulting him repeatedly. Is that what you want? MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Friedman did not insult Rothbard. He said that "whenever he [Rothbard]'s had the chance he's been nasty to me and my work," but overall he was quite objective, simply calling a spade a spade. That's exactly what this summary should do. Read the interview yourself, Miles; Binksternet's done a good summary but you would get his point better if you took the time to read the article he summarized. Yopienso (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
If an accurate accounting shows Rothbard in a bad light, I'm perfectly okay with that. I just don't want to allow Steeletrap and Specifico to diminish Rothbard so much that he falls off the radar. Rothbard's influence should be shown accurately. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Influence in what field? Economics or libertarian politics? MilesMoney (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Rothbard is important, Bink. Please try not to straw man arguments made by other users. We're arguing that he's not important as an academic economist, but is very important and notable as an anarcho-capitalist and libertarian theorist. You're attempting to cite Rothbard in the article of a Noble Laureate who was arguably the most important academic economist in the 20th century. If you accurately presented Rothbard's criticism as ad hominem (namely, that Friedman is not extreme enough to be a 'real libertarian'), perhaps including a couple sentences about it could be justified (including Friedman's contemptuous response that Rothbard was a "cult builder and dogmatist"). But citing Rothbard's academic work on economics (as opposed to his political views) to evaluate Friedman's views is preposterous, given that the man didn't publish in academic journals and we have a copious number of eminent sources who have criticized and addressed Friedman's work. Steeletrap (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Rothbard's fringe/non-mainsream status as an economist, please see (pro-Rothbard) economists Mark Skousen ("Rothbard ... refused to write [for] academic journals), Jeffrey Herbener ("he [Rothbard] received only ostracism from academia", p. 87)) and Hans-Hoppe. (Hoppe notes that the Misesian method to economics, which he and Rothbard embraced, is regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" by the mainstream, and indeed all non-Misesian economists.)

Bink, how can you seriously claim that his economics is mainstream RS, in the face of this evidence? (not to mention the fact that he explicitly rejects the scientific method applied to economics.) Steeletrap (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Friedman mentioned Rothbard by name eight times in his Reason interview. Binksternet (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
What difference does it make if Rothbard is a important economist? He is clearly an important libertarian figure, as is Friedman. Shouldnt we include Rothbard on Friedman and vice versa on that basis? Bonewah (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You are correct, sir. This info should not be shoved down the memory hole. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing tags and WP:V/#Burden_of_evidence

Per this diff aren't supposed to remove tags of info with edit summaries reading numerous sources throughout piece cite Nobel Laureate; adding another citation is superfluous. See policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Carol, per Burden of evidence, "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Nobody's challenged nor is likely to challenge the assertion that Friedman won a Nobel prize. Yopienso (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have moved tag to the earlier, unsourced items which I've now done. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

The link address in footnote 48 is dead, and should be replaced by the new link: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/monetary-central-planning-state-part-27-milton-friedmans-thoughts-costs-paper-money/ 50.182.239.206 (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks Cannolis (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Free lunch

Could we add something involving his 1975 book titled as such, and his frequent use of the term? What do you reckon? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Lucas, New Classic economics etc

A newish user recently added this, which is not an all together terrible edit, but im going to go ahead and guess that the user "Pgalbacs" is the same person as the author of the citation "last=Galbács |first=Peter |title=The Theory of New Classical Macroeconomics. A Positive Critique |location=Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London |publisher=Springer |year=2015 |isbn= 978-3-319-17578-2 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-17578-2 |url = http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-17578-2". Im not going to revert the edit, but i would like some other editors to look and weigh in. Bonewah (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Eden's comment on this article

Dr. Eden has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


I propose to change the description of the natural rate hypothesis. It should read something like that. He theorized that there exist a "natural" rate of unemployment and argued that unexpected inflation may lead to more employment but in the long run when expected inflation is equal to actual inflation, the rate of unemployment is the "natural" rate.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Eden has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference 1: Benjamin Eden, 2012. "Does a low interest rate support private bubbles?," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 12-00010, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
  • Reference 2: Benjamin Eden, 2009. "The Role of Government in the Credit Market," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0907, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Friedman's father's lastname?

The article says that Friedman's father's last name was Friedman but Alan O. Ebenstein's biography about him says that Milton does not know his father's original name, guessing it started with "Green" something (p. 6). There should be the original name as well in the article.Dancing Mickey Mouse (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Milton Friedman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Influences" in the infobox

The Influences parameter appears over-populated. The Infobox economist documentation states "Entries in influences, notable_students, school_tradition, and contributions should be explained in the main text of the article. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." I propose to delete names not mentioned as influences in the body of the article. Arguments to the contrary? LK (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Milton Friedman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of quotations

I had a read and was overwhelmed by the length and number of quotes.--92.244.17.51 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

The "Criticism" section says --

"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."

How about this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgyQsIGLt_w

How can this "Criticism" section can be improved to reflect this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremadog (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with using that YouTube video to refute the criticims of Friedman, is that it would be Original research to draw that conclusion ourselves. If you can find a reliable source defending MF from the charge of his critics, we can use that, but we cant do the defense ourselves. Bonewah (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Friedman, a liberal activist?

I noticed that Naomi Klein, one of Friedman's opponents, is called a 'social activist' in the main section of her lemma. What if I proposed to call Milton Friedman a 'liberal activist' in the main section of his lemma? Would that be accepted? If not, by which standards would Klein be rightly called an 'activist' and Friedman not an 'activist'? Mcouzijn (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Friedman considered himself an activist the way Klein did, nor did he do things like organize demonstrations and protest that are typical behaviors of activists. He was an academic, public intellectual and advisor, but never really primarily an activist. Dark567 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Friedman as an "unofficial adviser" to Chile

I have modified a line, and been reverted saying that "In 1976 Friedman defended his unofficial adviser position with: "I do not consider it as evil for an economist to render technical economic advice to the Chilean Government, any more than I would regard it as evil for a physician to give technical medical advice to the Chilean Government to help end a medical plague." I changed the part that described Friedman as an "unofficial adviser" to simply "Friedman responded" As can be seen here. The editor who reverted my changes claims that "both Friedman and Newsweek say he was" I disagree. I do not have access to the Newsweek article itself but in free to choose he expressly says he was not: " I am not now, and never have been, and economic adviser to the Pinochet Chilean Junta." This seems unequivocal to me. I am reverting that editor's change unless he/she can produce some good evidence that he was widely regarded as an "unofficial adviser" to The Pinochet government. Bonewah (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

MF and Pinochet

In the Chile section, I changed a reference to Pinochet and Friedman that read "Friedman did not criticize Pinochet's dictatorship at the time, nor the assassinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, or other atrocities that were well-known by then.[122] In 1976 Friedman defended his unofficial adviser position with: "I do not consider it as evil for an economist to render technical economic advice to the Chilean Government, any more than I would regard it as evil for a physician to give technical medical advice to the Chilean Government to help end a medical plague."[123]" to "Friedman did not criticize Pinochet's dictatorship at the time, nor the assassinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, or other atrocities that were well-known by then. In 1976 Friedman countered: "I do not consider it as evil for an economist to render technical economic advice to the Chilean Government, any more than I would regard it as evil for a physician to give technical medical advice to the Chilean Government to help end a medical plague.""

Even setting aside the accuracy of the claim that Friedman didnt criticize Pinchet's regieme, the phrase "unofficial adviser position" pushes the point of view that MF was complicit in Pinochet's crimes. I have changed it to the much more neutral and better worded "Friedman countered". There is no need for us to describe Friedman's role in Chile using Wikipedia's voice, we describe the criticisms and his counter arguments as we should. Adviser sugests that he had more of a relationship with Pinochet than he really did. We can let the readers draw their own conclusion based on the information we provide. Bonewah (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that "the phrase "unofficial adviser position" pushes the point of view that MF was complicit in Pinochet's crimes." I note that you have already posted a rant on this talk page in which you assert that you don’t believe it fair to call Friedman an unofficial adviser to Chile even though that is the language the sources use. Your argument is that Friedman said he wasn’t an official advisor so we should take his word for it, unfortunately thats not how it works and if we have WP:RSs which disagrees with the subject’s own autobiographical musings we must side with the WP:RS every single time’'. Also I note that the Friedman quote doesn't actually say he wasn’t an unofficial adviser just that he wasn’t an official advisor, its not “unequivocal” as you argued. This is a GA article, so unless you have a good reason to change something (which you don’t appear to have) I’m going to side heavily with the status quo. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
None of this speaks to why you think your preferred edit is superior. What sources are you claiming use that language? What Reliable source do you think disagrees? Bonewah (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Your edit is unnecessary, it addresses perceived non-neutral language which is in fact neutral. Your other argument is that Friedman claimed he wasn’t an unofficial advisor, but he didnt do that (at least not in the text provided). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, why is your preferred edit better? You keep imagining reasons why my changes are wrong, but say nothing as to why the edit you prefer is superior. Bonewah (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thats not an argument I’m required to make... (although if you cant tell what my argument would be I don’t know how to help you) You're the one who wants to make a change to a GA article therefore the *entirety* of the onus to demonstrate that the new text is an improvement is on you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually it is an argument you are required to make. That is the purpose of talk sections, to discuss potential changes, even to GA's. I cant help but notice that you have yet to site any reliable sources which you claimed described MF as an "unofficial adviser" above. I also note that you have yet to say why you think your preferred edit is superior, beyond WP:ILIKEIT. I think perhaps you are unfamiliar with what is expected with regards to article discussion and consensus seeking. Check out WP:TALK, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN for starters. Its incumbent on you to make a good argument as to why an article should be a certain way, not just declare that one edit is correct because it has been there. Bonewah (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Its common knowledge that MF was a confidant and advisor of Pinochet, saying “unofficial advisor” is being extremely neutral as wikipedia should be... There is a particular letter of his to Pinochet which is famous. I find it hard to believe you’re editing in good faith but will continue anyway. You love MF’s own words so much have these "Dear Mr. President, During our visit with you on Friday, March 21, to discuss the economic situation in Chile, you asked me to convey to you my opnions about Chile’s economic situation and policies after I had completed my visit. This letter is in response to that request.”[[6]] and he goes on btw... Is this really the first time you’ve come across this information? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
None of this makes him an "unofficial adviser". The problem here is the the neutrality of the phrase. Ive read his letter and understand his limited role in Chile. He held no position with the Pinochet government and, as such, calling him an adviser is overstating things quite a bit and, when put in the same sentence that describes Pinochet's crimes makes it sound as if MF was complicit in those crimes. You have still not provided a single reliable source that describes him as such nor have you explained why your preferred edit is superior to mine. Im going to ask that you put your best case forward and if no consensus can be reached, i will ask for a third opinion. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
You’re describing a government minister, anyone who gives advice is an advisor (and someone who gave advice outside of their formal job is an unofficial advisor). The level of wikilawyering here is extreme. Please request a third opinion, I’ve said repeatedly now that your argument that the language is non-neutral has no basis in reality. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I dont want this to get forgotten, and, seeing as you and I are the only ones to weigh in, id like to put it to a third opinion. One requirement of a third opinion is a neutral, one or two line description of the dispute. I propose the following "In what way should Wikipedia describe Milton Friedman's responses to criticisms of his relationship with Pinochet and Chile? Like this or this?"
Let me know if that wording is ok with you and ill put in the request. Bonewah (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

FA Nomination

I have nominated this article after both working on it intently for a bit of time, and reviewing and consulting the criteria. Please feel free to add comments on the FA page. In order to access this page, scroll up to the top of this talk page and click the 'leave a comment'. Thank you for any suggestions for improvement! BasedMisesMont Pelerin 00:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alzubaira.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Baseless, but also un-cited

"who will perhaps be known in history as giving the solution to the Fermi paradox. Unable to understand the instability in dynamical systems and the ensuing exponential growth, he promoted deregulation and free market everywhere, followed by bold ignorants like Reagan and Thatcher, leading to the accelerating disaster we already contemplate, which likely will lead this society to extinction. Thus Fermi's paradox is explained if the probability of (Friedman,Reagan,Thatcher)-like minds on an exoplanet is above 10^-9, which with the destruction of global education and promotion of greed and selfishness by advertising leads quickly to an exponential consumption of all resources and to extinction in about 100 years once the population is around 10^9" 68.84.124.229 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Vandalism. Reverted. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milton_Friedman/Archive_4&oldid=1222023251"