I've just learned that Milton Friedman died today. He was, without question, one of the twentieth century's greatest champions of liberty. The debt of intellectual gratitude that I, along with so many others, owe him, is simply immense. Without realizing it at the time, I virtually grew up on Friedman, as my dad's self-tutoring in economics owed a great deal to his weekly Newsweek columns. I first read Friedman myself when I was in college, and his influence on me was, and remains, profound. Every so often I go back and read Capitalism and Freedom and am amazed at how many important insights that little book contained. In hindsight, my work on race and economic regulation during the Lochner era is a direct outgrowth of reading Capitalism and Freedom, as I told Friedman many years ago. I did have the good fortune to meet him once, and beyond his great intellectual power, and his tremendous positive influence on the world, he (unlike many other notable libertarians of the 20th century) was an absolute mensch.
My condolences to the Friedman family, and to all who loved and admired him.
UPDATE: One more thing about Friedman's importance: in the 1960s and '70s, believing in free market economics left one vulnerable to being considered a nutjob. But Friedman, with his genial manners and incredibly strong academic credentials provided an incredibly important antidote to such calumny. Even today, when acquaintances of my father suggest that libertarian ideas are the preserves of "nuts," he responds, "do you think Milton Friedman is nuts?" And no one ever had the guts to suggest that Milton Friedman was nuts. That is to say, Friedman provided libertarian ideas generally, and economic ideas in particular, with a level of intellectual respectability that I'm quite certain gave many scholars, among others, of a later generation the fortitude to pursue truth as they understood it.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Milton Friedman, RIP:
- Milton Friedman, 94, Champion of Liberty:
best
matt
Friedman on Minimum Wage
RIP, Prof. Friedman
And exactly how is that?
RIP.
I'd suspect Friedman's remains wouldn't make good harvesting at 94
That alone should put him in the pantheon of great economists.
As Harry Truman understood, none of these folks has a monopoly on understanding human economic behavior.
Great times at Jimmy's. We'd couldn't agree on the Chicago School or Capialist Roaders, but Burns, Trout, Dotson, Baumgartner were going to be the great left wingers only to have Hoyt become the better right winger.
- Alaska Jack
And Mike--you are overstating the lack of free markets when Pinochet took power and assuming a causation from a correlation without any supporting evidence. As I stated above, China's economy is much more free than it was twenty years ago, yet the Communist party maintains its iron grip and has extended it to Hong Kong which is markedly less free than it was twenty years ago. There is very little correlation between economic and political freedom.
Robert Nozick died on January 23, 2002, and John Rawls in turn died on November 24, 2002.
This was just something that struck me. No implications.
I had toyed with writing him, and two old baseball players, fan letters while they were still on this earth. I'd better get writing to the Scooter, currently hospitalized, and to Yogi Berra. (Here in Boston the locals just lost Red Auerbach, but Johnny Pesky is hanging on.)
(I made it into a tinyurl, due to the fact NYT uses long link names.)
http://tinyurl.com/yb2dhs
I wonder what the Economist (the UK Paper) will write about Friedman
I would agree that economic liberty doesn't necessarily lead to political liberty. But I'd note that both economic liberty and political liberty are good things in themselves. It's best to have both. But if we have one, it's better than having neither.
It's possible to have a good deal of political liberty and personal freedoms, but not a lot of economic liberty (much of Western Europe; but even there, Western Europe is economically freer after Margaret Thacher than before). It's also possible to have capitalism and property rights and a heavy fisted authoritarian government in charge. Indeed, capitalism and markets simply need an orderly "rule of law" to work. And authoritarian nations like Singapore or perhaps China and Vietnam are as good (perhaps even better?) at providing an orderly rule of law type system than liberal democracy. Hence, capitalism will work well with non-liberal democratic authoritarian type nations. Remember what Jeane Kirkpatrick admonished us to distinguish between?
What would be best is to have the political and personal freedoms of the US and Western Europe combined with capitalism and property rights.
While it would be nice if they also had political freedoms and were liberal democracies, places like China, Chile, Vietnam, Singapore are still better off WITH the capitalism and free markets than what they would be without them.
His last C-span interview a while back (At 90?) found him vital and engaged in the inssies of our times. He could recite his accomplishments and disappointments. He understood that lack of compoetition in education, too too much socialism, was killing American's schooling. For his partisans, this work remains undone - merely begun.
A year or so ago, he was on PBS' Charlie Rose program. While still "all there,":Milton had lost some energy and half-a-step, intellectually. Still engaging enough to listen to, but no longer near top form.
Rose and David Friedman and friends are lucky to have had hime sol ong and so well. He is the very model of good aging. I want to be Milton Friedman when I am old. He is a great role model well-beyond his most recognized achievements.
During my time there, I heard Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman hold a free flowing debate on any and all subjects relating to economics. It was obvious that this was far from the first time they had held this kind of dialogue. I had never, and have never heard two men who combined intellectual brilliance, rapier wit, and ability to present academic theory to a non-specialist audience as I did that night.
Now that I reflect on David's mention of Friedman's column in Newsweek, and remembering that Samuelson alternated with him, it is depressing to think how magazines like Newsweek think that someone like Anna Quindlen is what their audience desires to read these days.
He responded with a handwritten note briefly but specifically addressing a point about the debate I had mentioned in passing. I have treasured it ever since. As David Bernstein and others said, he was an absolute mensch. His heart was as big as his mind.
I'm all in favor of praising the dead, but I do think some perspective is required. Let's face it: the impact of Vietnam on ending the draft overwhelmed any and every other influence.
J.F. Thomas must live in a cave.