More on Milton Friedman and Israel:

Building on Ilya's last post, I remember reading a funny story about a visit by Milton Friedman to Israel in the 1970s, which may or may not be aprochryphal. To understand the story, you need the following background information: First, Israel traditionally has had a five and a half day workweek. Second, in the 1970s many Israelis worked for state-owned enterprises, which, due to a combination of stifling labor union rules imposed by the hegemonic Histadrut labor federation and typical bureaucratic ineptitude and slothfulness, didn't pay very well, but required very little effort from employees (like the old Soviet joke: we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us).

According to the story (to the best of my recollection), Friedman, in Israel, is talking to a large group of business, labor, and political leaders. One of the business leaders gets up and asks, "Professor Friedman, what do you think of the idea of following the lead of the United States, and having our employees work five days a week?" Friedman responds, "I think that's much too drastic a step and will upset labor-management relations! Instead, why don't you start by getting your employees to work one day a week, and then, over time, ratchet it up to two, then three; eventually, over many years, maybe you can get them to work five days a week!"

Nick W. (mail):
DB, I doubt this kind of thinking is going to go over very well with the chareidi. But go ahead and try it, just don't complain when there is rioting after the chareidi discover they got kicked off the dole.
11.17.2006 3:41am
Serenity Now (mail) (www):
I remember reading a funny story about a visit by Milton Friedman to Israel in the 1970s, which may or may not be aprochryphal.

If you're not sure the story is authentic, doesn't that mean it is apocryphal?
11.17.2006 5:07am
Jacques:
If you're not sure the story is authentic, doesn't that mean it is apocryphal?


No. It means it's unverified. To be apocryphal, it should have enough likeness to be possibly true, yet be unlikely to true. It's certainly apocryphal if it can be shown to be untrue. But to say it may or may not be apocryphal is only to signal you don't know either way.
11.17.2006 4:49pm
Serenity Now (mail) (www):
To be apocryphal, it should have enough likeness to be possibly true, yet be unlikely to true.

It ordinarily means the truth of a story is doubtful, not "unlikely".
11.18.2006 7:49am
donaldk:
apocryphal, doubtful, unlikely; you'd do well in an Orthodox shul.
11.20.2006 6:08am
Serenity Now (mail) (www):
donaldk, don't you think there's a big difference between "this could be true or untrue" and "this is probably untrue"?
11.20.2006 8:53am
The checker from Israel:

The story about Milton Friedman is not true of course. This is a joke they used to tell about Levi Eshkol (finance minister 1952-1963 and prime minister 1963-1969) and was probably told about many other people as well.

The story is NOT a typical one for Milton Friedman's interaction with the Israeli public, so it is not authentic nor apocryphal.
11.20.2006 3:07pm