The media is obsessing with Rand and Milton Friedman

[KingNothing]

If you want to find out what Milton Friedman believed, reading what Rothbard says Milton Friedman believes is not a very sensible tactic, any more than it would be sensible to find out what libertarians believe by reading articles by people hostile to libertarianism. You would be better off reading Friedman.

Monetarism is not a theory about what monetary system should exist but about how money interacts with the economy. One could be a monetarist in favor of central banking, a monetarist in favor of competitive private issuers of money, a monetarist in favor of a gold standard, a monetarist in favor of fiat money. Similarly, identifying with the Austrian school or the Chicago school--or, for that matter, with Keynesianism--doesn't determine one's political views. Someone might believe that Keynes' was correct about macro-economics but that government attempts to use his ideas to control the economy were unworkable for public choice reasons. One can be an Austrian and in favor of quite a lot of government—consider Mises' views on conscription, military spending, and state opera--or a Chicago school anarchist, as I am. There's at least one edition of _The Road to Serfdom)_ that has, on the back cover, a glowing endorsement by Keynes.

Also, everyone should read Machinery of Freedom! It is tremendous!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Rothbard had a problem. Milton Friedman held extreme pro-market views--not as extreme as Rothbard's, but far enough from academic orthodoxy so that the same effect should have existed. But Milton Friedman not only wasn't ignored, he was viewed within the profession as a leading figure--despite his unpopular political views.

Friedman's popularity would only be a problem for Rothbard if Rothbard were a petty, vindictive, conceited twit, obsessed with being popular and with what other people thought of him.

I do not see Rothbard that way. I see him as a heroic and brilliant man, willing to stand against an ocean of opinion, taking a hard stand for truth in his science. Far from being obsessed, in his actions throughout his career he showed remarkable non-concern with popularity. He was a man willing to follow logic all the way. He was allergic to tossing consistency out in favor of compromise, and wedded instead to a firm and stalwart defense of absolute truth. He did not spend his life currying favor. He spent it writing books.

No, Rothbard was not, as you make him out, a small, narrow man, criticizing Milton Friedman out of an ugly jealousy. He criticized him for the same reason he criticized so many others: because he saw many of his views as problematic. That's what you do in science!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Suppose some future historian, in a book on the 20th century, commented that the Drug Policy Foundation was a supporter of the War on Drugs as demonstrated by their support for taxing Marijuana. This is for readers who will not know that marijuana was illegal and what was being proposed was that it be legalized and taxed.

Is it possible that he is an honest man? Yet that's what Rothbard did when he attacked [Adam] Smith for advocating an export tax on wool without mentioning that the export of wool was at the time illegal, the ban enforced by ferocious penalties, and Smith was proposing legalizing it.

Rothbard was writing a History of Economics textbook. He did a tremendous amount of research for it, discovering many economists who had become forgotten and lost to history. He discovered that Adam Smith was far from the Founding Father of economics, virtually inventing the science himself, as is the standard story in economics textbooks. Far from it, Smith did not make any new quality contributions. He did not advance the science. Rather, he introduced some bizarre new fallacies (diamond paradox and labor theory of value, notably). He had to have read and been aware of the continental economists, like Cantillon who was his contemporary. And he was a worse economist than them in every way. The economics of Smith were a step backwards from what had previously existed in the science.

History is putting together stories. You have to make a narrative. You choose good guys and bad guys. You put all your facts together in a way that's coherent, that makes sense.

Rothbard found out what I explained above: that Smith wasn't really a great economic thinker in the larger historical picture, and that everything good that he said had been said earlier and better by these obscure, unknown thinkers he'd dug up. And so that was the story he told. Smith is essentially a bad guy in that story. And so everything is told in light of that.

I happen to think it's a reasonable story. I think Smith had no excuse to be such a waffling, pussy-footed, compromising sell-out. Would Cantillon have said wool should be taxed? No way! Yet Smith did say that. So it is only natural to condemn Smith for being an embarrassment to economics for advocating only watered-down partial trade, and to laud other more uncompromising men for advocating complete free trade, especially given Murray's own firm and uncompromising personality.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If you want to find out what Milton Friedman believed, reading what Rothbard says Milton Friedman believes is not a very sensible tactic, any more than it would be sensible to find out what libertarians believe by reading articles by people hostile to libertarianism. You would be better off reading Friedman.

Mr. Friedman, welcome to the forum! I have read your book Machinery of Freedom, and also enjoyed Law's Order (though I have not read the whole thing), both of which I think make interesting points. I appreciate your systematic style of thought. And your point above is, of course, unassailable.

Monetarism is not a theory about what monetary system should exist but about how money interacts with the economy. One could be a monetarist in favor of central banking, a monetarist in favor of competitive private issuers of money, a monetarist in favor of a gold standard, a monetarist in favor of fiat money. Similarly, identifying with the Austrian school or the Chicago school--or, for that matter, with Keynesianism--doesn't determine one's political views. Someone might believe that Keynes' was correct about macro-economics but that government attempts to use his ideas to control the economy were unworkable for public choice reasons. One can be an Austrian and in favor of quite a lot of government—consider Mises' views on conscription, military spending, and state opera--or a Chicago school anarchist, as I am. There's at least one edition of _The Road to Serfdom)_ that has, on the back cover, a glowing endorsement by Keynes.

Your taxonomic clarification is well-appreciated by all, I'm sure. At least it is by me.

a Chicago school anarchist, as I am.

I don't do macro

I am wondering: if you don't do macro, in what sense do you subscribe to the Chicago School and reject the Austrian? On micro-economic issues are not both schools largely in agreement? Also, in what sense do you not do macro? Is not anarchism, and the formulation of legal orders in general, a "macro" topic?

With much respect!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Copy? David?

Oh well, I hope you come back. If you really are "the" David Friedman, it's an honor to have you here on the forum. All the best! For liberty!

Mr. Friedman, welcome to the forum! I have read your book Machinery of Freedom, and also enjoyed Law's Order (though I have not read the whole thing), both of which I think make interesting points. I appreciate your systematic style of thought. And your point above is, of course, unassailable.

Your taxonomic clarification is well-appreciated by all, I'm sure. At least it is by me.

I am wondering: if you don't do macro, in what sense do you subscribe to the Chicago School and reject the Austrian? On micro-economic issues are not both schools largely in agreement? Also, in what sense do you not do macro? Is not anarchism, and the formulation of legal orders in general, a "macro" topic?

With much respect!