Talk:Milton Friedman: Difference between revisions

Biography: Politics and Government Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).

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

Graball 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I removed this passage:

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

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

More specific URL on the site [here]

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

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

)

I removed this paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 'bio' section reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support the template:

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

Oppose the template:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have edited to reflect this. // Liftarn

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

A big loss for the field of economics. One of the few who understood laissez faire economics. Jcam 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's truly a sad day. KazakhPol 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did indeed die today, some friends and I may have a party this weekend to celebrate now that we have confirmed this is not a rumour. Hoorah!!

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

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

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

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

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