http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cb74eef8-7599-11db-aea1-0000779e2340.html

Even though many of you don't like him, he was a brilliant economist. He will be missed.

11/16/2006 4:19:54 PM

I can't wait to piss on his grave

11/16/2006 4:22:18 PM

jealousy is a bitch, huh?

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ^]

11/16/2006 4:42:23 PM

jealousy? don't really know where you got that from.

11/16/2006 4:45:22 PM

I didn't win the Nobel Prize, if that's what you're referring to.

11/16/2006 4:48:26 PM

agree with him or not, you can't deny his contributions to economics.

most people (smacker of nuts included) will only wish they can be as historically significant as he is/was/will be

11/16/2006 4:49:08 PM

^You're very right. Same with most highly influential economists.

11/16/2006 4:49:51 PM

^^so by this logic i am jealous of hitler and stalin because they were influential?

he presumably wants to piss on his grave precisely because he was influential AND he disagreed with his ideas. there's no reason to think he'd be jealous of him, nor is it relevant in the least.

11/16/2006 4:55:00 PM

I should seen this coming. We are comparing Friedman to Stalin and Hitler. Wow. With that, I am done... I was just hoping for a little respect shown.

11/16/2006 5:02:33 PM

Hey buddy, you're the one that rested your argument on "historically significant".

11/16/2006 5:05:28 PM

^^no...he was simply saying that "historical significance" is a very broad term in this case.

hell, yahoo serious is historically significant. so is jesus, stalin, napoleon, billy ray cyrus...

maybe you should have kept it in the realm of "significant economists". you're pretty dense if you think anyone is likening friedman to stalin and hitler.

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2006 5:06:32 PM

How about we like upon Friedman for his consistent advocacy of liberty. Or is liberty considered bad nowadays? I forget.

11/16/2006 6:04:08 PM

liberty from what?

and liberty to do what?

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 7:30 PM. Reason : !]

11/16/2006 7:30:04 PM

^^classic ploy of free market capitalists.

11/16/2006 8:35:07 PM

There was some Nobel Prize winner on Colbert a few weeks back and somehow throwing feces came up, and Colbert asked the guy "is there a nobel prize for throwing feces?" and the guy responded jokingly "I think that's the economics award." I LOLed.

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2006 9:47:24 PM

he apparently died during my bus 480 test on which i had to write down friedman's ethics views

ironic

11/16/2006 10:15:53 PM

Friedman dies today, choked to death by the money supply.

11/16/2006 10:22:17 PM

I anticipated that a lot of you (particularly Kris--for obvious reasons--and those that know nothing about economics) wouldn't see any significance. And I guess a guy dying is really not a big deal (considering his age and all) but anytime a Nobel prize winner with an extensive body of research passes, it is something to at least reflect upon.

I brought this one up, because it wasa someone I looked up to, you're welcome to bring up others.

11/16/2006 10:28:31 PM

on a similar note, one night my aunt was talking shit about Joe Strummer and apparently he died around the same time.

shiiiiiittttttt

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 10:18 AM. Reason : !!!!!!]

11/17/2006 10:16:56 AM

Quote :

"I anticipated that a lot of you (particularly Kris--for obvious reasons--and those that know nothing about economics) wouldn't see any significance."

I disagree with friedman so automatically I know nothing about economics.

11/17/2006 11:58:38 AM

No, not because you disagree with Milton Friedman's normative economics. But, do you know anything about economics? What's your background?

You may know a lot about economics, but if you think Milton Friedman's positive economics weren't significant, then you're either a moron or simply to biased to appreciate his substantial achievements in the field.

11/17/2006 12:13:49 PM

Lots of people forget that most of his work had little to do with what got him on television all the time.

11/17/2006 12:54:36 PM

Quote :

"You may know a lot about economics, but if you think Milton Friedman's positive economics weren't significant, then you're either a moron or simply to biased to appreciate his substantial achievements in the field."

So should we sing everyone's praises no matter how horrific the outcome?

11/17/2006 1:06:33 PM

Just stop.

You look dumber and dumber every time you post

11/17/2006 1:10:33 PM

YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY WORLD VIEW

YOU IS DUMB

11/17/2006 1:20:25 PM

ok then plz explain

Quote :

"horrific the outcome"

11/17/2006 1:30:43 PM

Now I know you do know nothing about economics...

Quote :

"So should we sing everyone's praises no matter how horrific the outcome?"

Jesus Christ, you have no idea what his economics were about. You know his political views, that apparantly seems to be the extent of it.

11/17/2006 1:33:40 PM

i think the point of this is implying that his views were "significant" and not necessarily that they were "great"

with respect to that then you're absolutely right, friedman's views were significant, in that they had a measurable impact and a huge following, not to mention an extensive body of research

not to mention, also, that we study him in economics in college, i'd say that's an indication of significance

11/17/2006 1:43:03 PM

Thank you Cherokee. That's a pretty good explanantion of why he matters.

I think the reason some of these people get all pissy has nothing to do with the positive economics he was famous for in academic circles.

11/17/2006 1:53:52 PM

Quote :

"with respect to that then you're absolutely right, friedman's views were significant, in that they had a measurable impact and a huge following, not to mention an extensive body of research not to mention, also, that we study him in economics in college, i'd say that's an indication of significance"

Plenty of people are studied in university. That doesn't mean we should show them deference. And you cannot seperate Friedman's politics from his economics. They are hand in hand.

11/17/2006 2:41:40 PM

Actually, yes you can. Fairly fucking easily.

You know how we talk about Karl Marx in sociology and philosophy? Its because he made a lot of significant impacts on it. Outside of his ideas about practicing revolution.

Likewise with Friedman, unless of course you have no idea what Freidman actually did in his life.


In fact, its so easy to do, even wikipedia did it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2006 2:43:57 PM

The fact remains that his politics are directly related to his limited government view of politics. Jesus Christ, are you that much of a hayek friedman clown to see this?

11/17/2006 2:50:42 PM

Quote :

"The fact remains that his politics are directly related to his limited government view of politics"

Hmm, nutty, you just said his politics are directly related to his politics, is that what you meant?

What bgmims is arguing is that his Scholarly contributions had very little to do with limited government. In fact, many of them had to do with the economics of central banks, which do not exist in Friedman's ideal political world of limited government.

11/17/2006 3:16:12 PM

Thank you Loneshark. It looks like you may be the first one who knows a god damn thing about Friedman's scholarly work.

(BTW, its ok for his politics to be derived from his economics. Its not okay for his economics to be derived from his politics...this is easily understood by high school dropouts)

11/17/2006 3:23:28 PM

I meant his economics. His pure economic theory revolved around limited governmental involvement in the economy, which to me is an unwise precept.

11/17/2006 4:08:05 PM

I'd say the reason he chose to research central banks was because of his politics. The guy talked about money supply or blasted the federal reserve in pretty much everything he did. I doubt there was ever a night a dinner that Mrs. Friedman didn't have to listen to how the Federal Reserve killed his father and raped his mother. What he developed might have been useful in general, he developed it so he could support his political views. I'm sure to some degree Keynes or anyone else might have done this as well, but let's not act like his political views and economic studies are sompletely seperable.

11/17/2006 4:33:35 PM

Kris, you are absolutely right that self-selection in research topics is a form of bias present in all science. The difference is that the science (if done correctly) is still positive and useful regardless of that self-selection bias.

Also

Quote :

"I meant his economics. His pure economic theory revolved around limited governmental involvement in the economy, which to me is an unwise precept."

Actually, a lot of his economic theory simply pointed out that governmental involvement in the economy was difficult to do well for a number of economic reasons. Then his personal views based on that made him argue for limited governmental involvement in the economy.

11/17/2006 4:38:39 PM

Quote :

"Then his personal views based on that made him argue for limited governmental involvement in the economy."

I believe his personal views biased his economics.

11/17/2006 6:21:11 PM

Then, in accordance with the peer review process, write a paper exposing the bias in his research. Until you've done that and gotten your paper likely peer-reviewed and published (or read one that was) then accusations that his work was biased are unfounded and should be scorned academically.

11/17/2006 6:40:45 PM

Did you really just attempt that?

11/17/2006 6:44:02 PM

Quote :

"I believe his personal views biased his economics."

Foundation? See, this is when your apparant lack of economic knowledge is hurting you.

________
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/busecon/econfac/Friedman.html

Here is a Selected Bibliography. It is easy to tell (based on the name, subject, or publication of the works) whether he was engaging in positive economics or something more like political ramblings or at best, normative economics.
He won the Nobel Prize for the positive economics. According to Nobel's website:

Quote :

""for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy""

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1976/index.html

Not for his anger at the Fed. Not for his views on Libertarianism. How is that so hard to see?

Besides, most of his most influential work dealth with floating exchange rates and proving that inflation was a monetary phenomena. If you don't believe in that stuff, you have no hope of understanding economics.

Oh, and BTW,

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2006 9:12:54 PM

Oh, and BTW,

I wanted to add this interview with Friedman et al. from Reason Magazine. Of course the source is biased towards free markets, but this interview, I think, gives an accurate idea of Freidman's personal feelings about Fed Policy. They aren't as radical as some of you want to pretend. Of course he thinks the free market could do it best (with a simple monetary growth policy) but he is realistic and gives credit to the Fed more than you might think.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/38384.html


___

Also, here's an exerpt from Bernanke's speech at Milton's 90th Birthday. I assure you, he wasn't just flattering the old man 'a la DeLay.' He meant this, and he was right.

Quote :

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 9:46 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2006 9:44:05 PM

Quote :

"Stephen Colbert: You’ve said that anyone who grew up on a farm knows that evolution exists. Okay… Are you saying that a monkey can milk a cow? Dr. Peter Agre: Well, if I can milk a cow, I suspect a monkey as smart as I am could milk a cow. Stephen Colbert: Are there monkeys as smart as you are? Dr. Peter Agre: I’m sure there’re quite a few. Stephen Colbert: Really? Dr. Peter Agre: Mmm hmm. Stephen Colbert: Do they give a Nobel Prize for throwing your own feces? Dr. Peter Agre: That’s the economics prize, I think."

11/18/2006 12:58:26 AM

You do realize someone already brought that up in this thread, right? In fact, it was you who brought it up.

But alas, you're correct. Someone doesn't like economics so the whole field is negated. Everyone is an armchair economist, biologist and chemist. Unfortunately, the only one they don't realize they don't know anything about is economics.

11/18/2006 9:26:07 AM

I just wanted everyone to know the exact wording. It really was pretty hilarious I thought.

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 10:05 AM. Reason : If only I could find a video...]

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 10:05 AM. Reason : if you could find something for me to read that explains why Friendman is the man, i'd read it]

11/18/2006 10:04:44 AM

Quote :

"Not for his anger at the Fed."

That's more or less all monetarism stuff is IMO.

He might have done useful stuff, but you simply can't completely seperate that stuff from his personal beliefs, plus I still like to call him an asshole.

11/18/2006 2:45:40 PM

I answered this thread earlier for you moron but I guess it didn't come through.
Let me dig it back up again.

__
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html
Here is a quick bio on some of his accomplishments.

Quote :

"His landmark work of 1957, A Theory of the Consumption Function, took on the Keynesian view that individuals and households adjust their expenditures on consumption to reflect their current income. Friedman showed that, instead, people's annual consumption is a function of their expected lifetime earnings. "

Quote :

"In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman liberated the study of market economics from its ivory tower and brought it down to earth. He argued for, among other things, a volunteer army, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of licensing of doctors, a negative income tax, and education vouchers. (Friedman is a passionate foe of the military draft: he once stated that the abolition of the draft was the only issue on which he had personally lobbied Congress.) Although his book did not sell well, many of the young people who did read it were encouraged by it to study economics themselves. His ideas spread worldwide with Free to Choose (coauthored with his wife, Rose Friedman), the best-selling nonfiction book of 1980, written to accompany a TV series on the Public Broadcasting System. This book made Milton Friedman a household name. "

Quote :

"Although much of his trail-blazing work was done on price theory—the theory that explains how prices are determined in individual markets—Friedman is popularly recognized for monetarism. Defying Keynes and most of the academic establishment of the time, Friedman presented evidence to resurrect the quantity theory of money—the idea that the price level is dependent upon the money supply. In Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money, published in 1956, Friedman stated that in the long run, increased monetary growth increases prices but has little or no effect on output. In the short run, he argued, increases in the money supply cause employment and output to increase, and decreases in the money supply have the opposite effect."

Quote :

"Although many economists disagree with Friedman's monetarist ideas, he has substantial influence on the profession. One measure of that influence is the change in the treatment of monetary policy given by MIT Keynesian Paul Samuelson in his best-selling textbook, Economics. In the 1948 edition Samuelson wrote dismissively that "few economists regard Federal Reserve monetary policy as a panacea for controlling the business cycle." But in 1967 Samuelson said that monetary policy had "an important influence" on total spending. The 1985 edition, coauthored with Yale's William Nordhaus, states, "Money is the most powerful and useful tool that macroeconomic policymakers have," adding that the Fed "is the most important factor" in making policy. "

And he and Phelp's helped bring about the demise of the Phillip's Curve (which is still studied for simplicity)

Quote :

"Throughout the sixties Keynesians—and mainstream economists generally—had believed that the government faced a stable long-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation—the so-called Phillips Curve. In this view the government could, by increasing the demand for goods and services, permanently reduce unemployment by accepting a higher inflation rate. But in the late sixties Friedman (and Columbia University's Edmund Phelps) challenged this view. Friedman argued that once people adjusted to the higher inflation rate, unemployment would creep back up. To keep unemployment permanently lower, he said, would require not just a higher, but a permanently accelerating inflation rate. (See Phillips Curve.) "

This exerpt explains his significance to economics:

Quote :

"No other economist since Keynes has reshaped the way we think about and use economics as much as Milton Friedman. By his scope of topics and magnitude of ideas, Friedman has not only laid a cornerstone of contemporary economic thought but has also built an entire construction. "

11/18/2006 3:03:31 PM