« 2008 Exhaustion | Main | Can't Fight City Desk? »
January 28, 2007
Who Was Milton Friedman?
By Ezra
Paul Krugman's assessment of Milton Friedman's work in this week's New York Review of Books is a true must-read, affirming once-again Krugman's status as the greatest living communicator of economic thought and history. Friedman's death was followed by a flood of underwhelming obituaries, impenetrably technical arguments, and conservative hagiographies. So Krugman's piece, which capably disentangles Friedman's careful economic work from his substantially less-cautious political advocacy is a welcome antidote:
Milton Friedman played three roles in the intellectual life of the twentieth century. There was Friedman the economist's economist, who wrote technical, more or less apolitical analyses of consumer behavior and inflation. There was Friedman the policy entrepreneur, who spent decades campaigning on behalf of the policy known as monetarism—finally seeing the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England adopt his doctrine at the end of the 1970s, only to abandon it as unworkable a few years later. Finally, there was Friedman the ideologue, the great popularizer of free-market doctrine.
Did the same man play all these roles? Yes and no. All three roles were informed by Friedman's faith in the classical verities of free-market economics. Moreover, Friedman's effectiveness as a popularizer and propagandist rested in part on his well-deserved reputation as a profound economic theorist. But there's an important difference between the rigor of his work as a professional economist and the looser, sometimes questionable logic of his pronouncements as a public intellectual. While Friedman's theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there's much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public.[...]
During the first half of that fifty-eight-year stretch, from 1947 to 1976, Milton Friedman was a voice crying in the wilderness, his ideas ignored by policymakers. But the economy, for all the inefficiencies he decried, delivered dramatic improvements in the standard of living of most Americans: median real income more than doubled. By contrast, the period since 1976 has been one of increasing acceptance of Friedman's ideas; although there remained plenty of government intervention for him to complain about, there was no question that free-market policies became much more widespread. Yet gains in living standards have been far less robust than they were during the previous period: median real income was only about 23 percent higher in 2005 than in 1976.[...]
In the aftermath of the Great Depression, there were many people saying that markets can never work. Friedman had the intellectual courage to say that markets can too work, and his showman's flair combined with his ability to marshal evidence made him the best spokesman for the virtues of free markets since Adam Smith. But he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work. It's extremely hard to find cases in which Friedman acknowledged the possibility that markets could go wrong, or that government intervention could serve a useful purpose.
Read the whole thing, which is not merely a remember of Milton Friedman, but a guide to some of the most contentious economic debates and questions of the post-war era.
January 28, 2007 in Economics | Permalink
Comments
It's nice to see Paul Krugman writing outside the NY Times Select wall.
Posted by: d0n camillo | Jan 28, 2007 6:13:04 PM
While Friedman's theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there's much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public.[...]
What a perfect description of Krugman himself.
Posted by: John Doe | Jan 28, 2007 6:55:31 PM
If this isn't a classic case of the pot calling the kettle back I don't know what is.
Posted by: BlaBlaBla | Jan 28, 2007 7:35:58 PM
I guess there's a group of conservative trolls that spend all day googling "Milton Friedman" to find spots that mention him and rally to his defense as to keep the ideology alive, even though that body of thought is moldering in the grave on so many issues.
Ezra: Krugman's status as the greatest living communicator of economic thought and history. I don't know, from lack of familiarity with economic thinkers in the public arena, if this is fully true, but he sure does speak at a level I can understand whereas most others I read (or hear) do not. Now, for the first time, I think I understand what the monetarists were up to and how flakey their record was before it was cast out as guiding light by the Fed.
Krugman: ...he made great contributions to economic theory by emphasizing the role of individual rationality—but unlike some of his colleagues, he knew where to stop. Why didn't he exhibit the same restraint in his role as a public intellectual?
The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role.
Amen. There was a time in the past (that I can recall) when the Council of Economic Advisors (and the Chairman) mostly spoke economic truth.
Today, and for the years since Reagan, not so much. Actually, almost nothing can be trusted - they are hired guns, and often have tarnished reputations for 'economic spinning' when they return to the academic world that they arose from and return to after their DC sojourn into shills for the conservative free-market economic/political philsophy of the Republican Presidents. It's hard work being a pimp.
One wonders whether Krugman had any choice when the NY Times decided that he and other commentators were thrown behind the subscription-only firewall Certainly, the effect has been to mute his voice from the public, although he clearly hasn't muted his message - for which we can be truly thankful.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 28, 2007 8:07:54 PM
It's unfortunate that Krugman was unable to produce more solid evidence to back up his claims of Friedman's lack of intellectual honesty in popular work. To some people, charges of intellectual dishonesty are very serious things, and I think they should only be made where the evidence is very strong. (I think this should also apply to people who reproduce those charges, Ezra.) This goes double if the target of the criticism is recently dead and people are still picking his bones, while he can no longer respond. Maybe Krugman has evidence not in his piece, but the case he makes gives me more reason to doubt Krugman than Freidman.
In his 1967 presidential address he declared that "the US monetary authorities followed highly deflationary policies," and that the money supply fell "because the Federal Reserve System forced or permitted a sharp reduction in the monetary base, because it failed to exercise the responsibilities assigned to it"—an odd assertion given that the monetary base, as we've seen, actually rose as the money supply was falling. (Friedman may have been referring to a couple of episodes along the way in which the monetary base fell modestly for brief periods, but even so his statement was highly misleading at best.)
Not very strong evidence, especially for the sweeping kind of charge Krugman makes. Who knows, without the context, what Friedman had in mind. Unfortunately, we can't assume that Krugman has taken proper note of the context, as the next quote will show.
By 1976 Friedman was telling readers of Newsweek that "the elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement," a statement that his readers surely took to mean that the Depression wouldn't have happened if only the government had kept out of the way—when in fact what Friedman and Schwartz claimed was that the government should have been more active, not less.
I don't think Friedman's readers would be warranted in taking the comment as Krugman says they did. The quote is apparently from a Newsweek article by Friedman called "Economic Myths and Public Opinion". Here is the quote in context:
The elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement. It was not produced by the failure of private enterprise, it was produced by the failure of government to perform a function which had been assigned to it.
If that's the same article Krugman refers to, rather than an oddly redundant one, it's plain whose intellectual honesty ought to be in question. Maybe Krugman got the quote from another source, without the context, and failed to check it. But that alone would be inexcusable in this context. I'll add that the editing of the New York Review of Books should also be stronger in this kind of case.
I don't follow Krugman, but I'm vaguely aware of agreeing with his general drift. I've had three occasions in about the same number of weeks to read Krugman, and in each case have found what seem to me strong reasons to see him as less than a good example of the intellectual honesty he lectures us about in connection with Friedman. I hope this is just an unhappy coincidence.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 28, 2007 8:12:45 PM
Krugman should look in the mirror:
Moreover, [Krugman's] effectiveness as a popularizer and propagandist rested in part on his well-deserved reputation as a profound economic theorist. But there's an important difference between the rigor of his work as a professional economist and the looser, sometimes questionable logic of his pronouncements as a public intellectual. While [Krugman's] theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there's much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public.
Posted by: Billster | Jan 28, 2007 8:25:49 PM
Sanpete, you're either not understanding Krugman's point or deliberately ignoring it. Do you believe the Great Depression was the government's fault? Really? Then read his article again. And if you don't believe that, then how is Friedman's argument that the government "produced" the Great Depression anything but a blatant misrepresentation. Your additional excerpt changes the case not at all.
Friedman, who for decades pursued an anti-government agenda, used his perch at Newsweek to tell readers that the Great Depression was the government's fault, rather than an event that more enlightened policy-making using theories derived in part from the Depression's example could have ameliorated. He even called it an "elementary" fact. This is, definitionally, intellectual dsihonesty.
Posted by: Ezra | Jan 28, 2007 10:11:38 PM
It should also be noted that not only were Friedman's monetary pronouncements often dishonestly framed in public venues, but they turned out to be wrong. That latter's no great sin, but it doesn't help.
Posted by: Ezra | Jan 28, 2007 10:14:01 PM
Ezra, I think I understand Krugman's point very well. He doesn't accuse Friedman of dishonesty for being wrong about the cause of the Depression or anything else. He understands that dishonesty isn't a matter of someone saying things you or I disagree with, or even that are false. Krugman argues that Friedman misrepresents Friedman's own views, that he said things he knew were false, or would be taken in a false way. To show this he takes a quote and implies that Friedman must or should have known that his audience would understand it to mean something that Friedman himself had previously said the opposite of. By giving the quote in context I show that Krugman has reversed the only meaning it could possibly have. The other quote Krugman gives is next to useless in supporting his charge.
I can tell that Krugman was admirably careful in how he put some of his charges against Friedman, but here, it appears to me, he has fallen flat on the face that was claiming to expose Friedman. I've wondered before about the odd correlation between charges of dishonesty and less than fully intellectually honest treatment (if being suitably careful matters) by the one making the charge. This is more grist for that thought.
If you think Friedman was dishonest, you should recognize the gravity of the charge and either back it up or at least admit that it's merely an opinion you aren't able to back up with careful, honestly and fairly considered evidence. Referring to Krugman's piece for support won't accomplish that.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 28, 2007 10:46:20 PM
"To some people, charges of intellectual dishonesty are very serious things, and I think they should only be made where the evidence is very strong."
"I've had three occasions in about the same number of weeks to read Krugman, and in each case have found what seem to me strong reasons to see him as less than a good example of the intellectual honesty he lectures us about in connection with Friedman."
Gee, if Sanpete hadn't convinced me that every accusation of intellectual dishonesty needs to be thoroughly documented and defended, I'd be tempted to point out that Sanpete himself appears to be intellectually dishonest by, without serious evidence, smearing Krugman (and Ezra by link-assosciation) as intellectually dishonest for documenting Friedman's history of at times appearing to promote free market ideology in an intellectually dishonest way. But that's just my two cents.
On a less annoying note, does anyone (Ezra) have suggestions for what a good place to start on Keynes, Galbraith or Friedman might be for someone who is not trained in economics?
And I thought the Krugman piece was great.
Posted by: Sam L. | Jan 28, 2007 11:33:28 PM
Sam, you are indeed making my point, but not as you presumably intend. I have given the evidence in the case at hand, and will happily point you to the other cases if you're interested. The fact that you completely ignore most of what I say, and misread what you do address, suggests you really don't have much interest, though.
Try Wikipedia.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 28, 2007 11:47:16 PM
You're right that I don't have much interest, but that remark alone made me go check Wiki, as you suggested. I looked up the "criticisms" section of the Krugman entry. First it quotes the Economist magazine making an unsubstantiated accusation of dishonesty that I'm sure will outrage you, since it is not defended with extensive facts. Then it gives one example of Krugman being accused of mixing two data sets in a single column in May 2004. It goes on to say "However, this form of "mixing" data sources is uncontroversial -- the same methodology is used in numerous government and journalistic documents, including the Bush Administration's 2004 Economic Report of the President."
So, lets recount. Krugman accuses Friedman of dishonesty and supports it with quotations. You claim that he is dishonest in his selective quotation of Friedman, Ezra disagrees. You claim you have seen three instances of Krugman being dishonest in the last three weeks, but fail to give any link or example. You also insinuate that Ezra is dishonest by assosciation with Krugman. Finally, you, presumably assuming that I will not check it, send me to a source which utterly fails to support your accusation of Krugman.
Posted by: Sam L. | Jan 29, 2007 12:15:22 AM
Some of questioned Milton Friedman's honesty when speaking to professional audiences too. I provide a reference.
Posted by: Robert | Jan 29, 2007 1:08:42 AM
Sam, first apologies for unintentionally sending you to the Wiki for Krugman. That suggestion was in regard to your inquiry about Keynes, Galbraith and Friedman. Usually a good place to start. I don't base my concerns about Krugman on the Wikipedia article, which I haven't read.
You're being careless in your reading in a few ways. First, I haven't claimed Krugman is dishonest. I've claimed that he has raised strong cause for concern in the area of intellectual dishonesty. Second, again, I have given the evidence for one of the three cases, the one relevant to this thread. Third, I haven't insinuated Ezra is dishonest by association with Krugman. I said that Ezra should be more careful in repeating charges of dishonesty and that he should back up whatever charges he makes on his own. I've also remarked a general association between accusations of dishonesty (in intellectual discussions, in particular) and lax attention to the canons of intellectual honesty.
Fourth, and most importantly, you act like the fact that I've said one thing and Ezra another leaves you with no further recourse to settle the issue of whether Krugman did what I said he did. You read English; you can settle this for yourself by reading the relevant part of Krugman's article (which you seem to have done) and then just seeing if what I said is true. I give the quotes; they're easy to verify. If you can read what Krugman said some other way, I'm interested in your interpretation. What Ezra said in response misses both the logic of Krugman's argument on this point and the particulars of my response.
You still haven't shown any interest in following up on this, but since you insist on making an issue of it, you can find another of the instances I was referring to here. If you want to see the third, try here. Both might require some explanation, but you should be able to see the root of my concern in each case, if you read my comments.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 29, 2007 1:25:35 AM
good luck with arguing with sanpete sam- he likes to argue for the sake of argument.
Posted by: akaison | Jan 29, 2007 1:48:32 AM
Prince of lies paul "the liar" krugman is lying. The cited 1976 newsweek article wherein friedman has suppsedly reached the zenith of his mendacity makes exactly the same argument that krugman alleges friedman deviated from.
Posted by: Henry hazlitt | Jan 29, 2007 5:02:48 AM
i think all of your wingnuts are proving the point. just like in science, when you let wingnuttery take over, whatever descriptive value an argument has is lost to the need to create some generalized prescriptive norm. or, to put another way, the problem with Friedman as explained by Ezra is he says in public all X is true for the purpose of prescription when his work proves that potentially sometimes x is true for the purpose of description. The wingnut will want to ignore the actual position in favor of the the wanted position. It's like the debtate over global warm by libertarians.
Posted by: akaison | Jan 29, 2007 9:19:49 AM
I think it's shameful to publicly trash the reputation of a man on such poor evidence and, when challenged, still neglect to give adequate reasons or to even adequately consider the arguments against the charges. Ezra's an admirable and excellent man, and probably much nicer and more even-tempered by nature than I can hope to be, but this occasional tendency to irrationally lash out at the honesty of those with other views is just wrong. Even if it's all too common among pundits.
It's important to distinguish the argument that Ezra (barely) makes about Friedman's supposed dishonesty from the one Krugman makes. Krugman argues that Friedman said or allowed others to read into what he said things that Friedman himself didn't believe. If that were true, it would make a good basis for a charge of intellectual dishonesty. However, despite his repetition of the charge several times in a serious overview of the work of a man he claims to admire, Krugman produces astonishingly little evidence, and the evidence turns out to be worse than poor, pointing more to Krigman's own defects than Friedman's.
The argument Ezra makes (apparently thinking it to be Krugman's point as well) is that Friedman just misrepresented the causes of the Depression, and he implies that there was something self-contradictory about how Friedman did this as well. Though he acknowledges the difference between being wrong and being dishonest, he makes no effort to show why Friedman was not only wrong but dishonest, and why this supposed conflict within his views as presented to the public would be dishonest rather than, as we assume of those whose views we see more favorably, complex.
There is a strong tendency, for emotional reasons, to see the ideas and people we strongly disagree with as dishonest. I think this limit on good will (which is a correlate of good faith) shows both in Krugman's and Ezra's approach to Friedman. Among other things, it limits understanding of others and ourselves.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 29, 2007 1:32:24 PM
"good luck with arguing with sanpete sam- he likes to argue for the sake of argument."
He's pretty good at it too.
Posted by: Alex | Jan 29, 2007 2:42:10 PM
I think all this "dishonesty" discussion is a red herring. The truly interesting thing, to me, about Krugmans article is that it explains the difference between Friedman the respected economist and Friedman the libertarian crank. The dishonesty was where Friedman allowed these two roles to blur.
Posted by: Eli | Jan 29, 2007 6:20:42 PM
I don't get it. His role as a popularizer and his role as a scholar shouldn't have overlapped, and that they did makes him dishonest, which is a red herring, but it's the most intersting thing in the article?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 29, 2007 7:45:38 PM
Sanpete, the Cartman of typepad
Posted by: asdsadf | Jul 30, 2007 8:48:56 PM
Wow, I'm getting a whole little troop of personal trolls here. Or maybe just one with multiple personalities.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 30, 2007 8:52:51 PM
Buy Cialis Online - buy cialis online
Cialis - cialis
Buy Levitra - levitra
Buy Viagra - buy viagra
Yahoo! - Yahoo!
----------------------------------------------------------
Buy Propecia - buy propecia
Buy Meridia - buy meridia
Buy Paxil - buy paxil
Zocor - buy zocor
Google - Google
----------------------------------------------------------
Buy Prozac - buy prozac
Buy Xenical - buy xenical
Buy Soma - buy soma
Buy Wellbutrin - buy wellbutrin
Posted by: Dave | Sep 11, 2007 10:55:42 AM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: JUDY | Sep 26, 2007 4:15:34 AM



