thegryffindorhobbit's review against another edition
3.0
This is a dry read on a complicated subject. I learned a lot, one thing most of all, it’d’ve all gone to shit if it were up to me in making the impossible decisions of economics and government.
jasonfurman's review against another edition
5.0
I last read Capitalism and Freedom as a teenager. Rereading it I was surprised about how contemporary and undated it is, even if the lectures it is based on were delivered more than 60 years ago. The lack of being dated is partly because much of the world has not changed (e.g., we still have occupational licensing—in fact more of it—and farm supports), Milton Friedman was prescient (e.g., the shift to floating exchange rates and lower top marginal tax rates), Friedman helped shape our thinking (see the previous), and many of the same often wrong ways of thinking and canards Friedman are still alive and well (e.g., a larger welfare state will make us unfree politically).
Friedman’s book is a combination of a normative worldview and a set of positive statements all applied to a variety of areas of economic policy. The normative worldview is one of “liberalism” in the classical sense, the idea that people should have maximum freedom from coercion by the state—or “negative liberty” to use Isaiah Berlin’s terminology (as compared to “positive liberty” which is more like the right to an education, healthcare and the like). He argues: “Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom.”
Friedman argues that the genius of the market is to let everyone express their own views and tastes through what they purchase while government requires a majority to impose its views on all. The problem of government, her argues, is compounded by the lack of a mechanism to correct problems—it is hard to move cities, even harder to move states, and harder still to move countries—as compared to the market where you can simply stop buying the offending product.
Friedman makes two sets of positive claims. The first is quite broad: “a system of economic freedom” is a “necessary condition for political freedom.” He is arguing that the more the government interferes with economic choices, the more likely it is to become like the Soviet Union without political freedoms. His two arguments for this proposition are: (1) a thought experiment about how if the government owns all of the means of production it is impossible for dissenters to, for example, hire a printer to print their dissenting newspaper and (2) a set of syllogisms of the form “the Soviet Union is not a market economy, the Soviet Union is a dictatorship, therefore if you are not a market economy you are a dictatorship.”
This broad claim may well be true in the limit, the situation that both the thought exercise and syllogism apply to. But sixty years of data have proven very unkind to it absent that limiting case. The National Health Service in the UK, for example, may be a good or a bad idea but by moving some fraction of the way to nationalization it has not exactly impeded freedom and liberty. The Scandanavian countries have much larger governments but also do not display systematically less freedom. There are arguments for and against larger state involvement in the economy but to say it is The Road to Serfdom (as Friedman, drawing on Friedrich Hayek, argues) is not helpful.
(Friedman’s views about the links between economic policies and political freedom reach an almost self parodying extreme when he argues that any form of exchange rate management is “the most serious short-run threat to economic freedom” and that “the most effective way to convert a market economy into an authoritarian economic society is to start by imposing direct controls on foreign exchange.”)
The second set of positive claims that Friedman makes are around a lot of specific economic policies arguing that in almost every case good intentions have perverse results and even judged by the moral standard he attributes to intellectuals (a sort of paternalistic, equal outcomes, interventionists mindset) they are failures. He argues this is true of countercyclical macroeconomic (it introduces instability and worsens the business cycle), anti-monopoly legislation (it can entrench monopolies), progressive taxation (in some ways it increases income inequality, housing projects (it destroys the housing supply), and the minimum wage (it increases unemployment and makes the poor worse off).
No doubt some of these are right, like housing projects where the emphasis of policy has appropriately shifted towards housing vouchers and reducing barriers that complain housing supply—ideas that are along the lines of what Friedman is arguing. Some of these are almost certainly wrong, the increased stability of the macroeconomy—including the fact that the Great Recession was much milder than the Great Recession—is thanks to the fact that policymakers, especially in Central Banks, have ignored Friedman’s mechanistic and disastrous proposal for monetary policy to simply increase the growth of the money stock with no regard to anything else in the economy.
What I find suspicious is that that contrary to the rigorous, hard-headed thinking Friedman claims to espouse much of this reads more like wishful thinking. Friedman essentially wants to have his cake (a classical liberal view of justice) and eat it to (if you follow his normative philosophy you’ll get better outcomes even measured on your different normative philosophy). For example, progressive taxation isn’t just a violation of liberty, it also can make the distribution of income even worse. This is the type of too-good-to-be-true wishful thinking that he would rightfully decry in other circumstances. And it means he avoids some of the tough tradeoffs one would have to consider about whether one prioritizes liberalism as a philosophy or outcomes because they will not both line up.
In Friedman’s defense, he does have a reason—other than pure coincidence—that his normative and positive views line up so closely. Specifically, he argues that public policies are not done randomly or by wise policy mandarins but instead systematically shaped by self-interested parties. These policies can persist because they have a small number of highly visible winners and many invisible losers. He would argue the minimum wage has this feature, being pushed by labor unions to help their members, creating a bunch of visible winners receiving higher wages, and many more people without jobs who may not even realize it was because of the higher minimum wage. (I am not endorsing his view, just describing it—the evidence since his book has, at the very least, cast substantial doubt on this particular argument.)
All of that said, anyone who cares about public policy should think very hard about the imperfections of government, the distortions of rent seekers and regulatory capture, the role of incentives, and unintended consequences. You do not need to agree with Friedman’s every prescription to benefit from better understanding all of these issues and factoring them in to your evaluation of public policy going forward.
Friedman’s book is a combination of a normative worldview and a set of positive statements all applied to a variety of areas of economic policy. The normative worldview is one of “liberalism” in the classical sense, the idea that people should have maximum freedom from coercion by the state—or “negative liberty” to use Isaiah Berlin’s terminology (as compared to “positive liberty” which is more like the right to an education, healthcare and the like). He argues: “Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom.”
Friedman argues that the genius of the market is to let everyone express their own views and tastes through what they purchase while government requires a majority to impose its views on all. The problem of government, her argues, is compounded by the lack of a mechanism to correct problems—it is hard to move cities, even harder to move states, and harder still to move countries—as compared to the market where you can simply stop buying the offending product.
Friedman makes two sets of positive claims. The first is quite broad: “a system of economic freedom” is a “necessary condition for political freedom.” He is arguing that the more the government interferes with economic choices, the more likely it is to become like the Soviet Union without political freedoms. His two arguments for this proposition are: (1) a thought experiment about how if the government owns all of the means of production it is impossible for dissenters to, for example, hire a printer to print their dissenting newspaper and (2) a set of syllogisms of the form “the Soviet Union is not a market economy, the Soviet Union is a dictatorship, therefore if you are not a market economy you are a dictatorship.”
This broad claim may well be true in the limit, the situation that both the thought exercise and syllogism apply to. But sixty years of data have proven very unkind to it absent that limiting case. The National Health Service in the UK, for example, may be a good or a bad idea but by moving some fraction of the way to nationalization it has not exactly impeded freedom and liberty. The Scandanavian countries have much larger governments but also do not display systematically less freedom. There are arguments for and against larger state involvement in the economy but to say it is The Road to Serfdom (as Friedman, drawing on Friedrich Hayek, argues) is not helpful.
(Friedman’s views about the links between economic policies and political freedom reach an almost self parodying extreme when he argues that any form of exchange rate management is “the most serious short-run threat to economic freedom” and that “the most effective way to convert a market economy into an authoritarian economic society is to start by imposing direct controls on foreign exchange.”)
The second set of positive claims that Friedman makes are around a lot of specific economic policies arguing that in almost every case good intentions have perverse results and even judged by the moral standard he attributes to intellectuals (a sort of paternalistic, equal outcomes, interventionists mindset) they are failures. He argues this is true of countercyclical macroeconomic (it introduces instability and worsens the business cycle), anti-monopoly legislation (it can entrench monopolies), progressive taxation (in some ways it increases income inequality, housing projects (it destroys the housing supply), and the minimum wage (it increases unemployment and makes the poor worse off).
No doubt some of these are right, like housing projects where the emphasis of policy has appropriately shifted towards housing vouchers and reducing barriers that complain housing supply—ideas that are along the lines of what Friedman is arguing. Some of these are almost certainly wrong, the increased stability of the macroeconomy—including the fact that the Great Recession was much milder than the Great Recession—is thanks to the fact that policymakers, especially in Central Banks, have ignored Friedman’s mechanistic and disastrous proposal for monetary policy to simply increase the growth of the money stock with no regard to anything else in the economy.
What I find suspicious is that that contrary to the rigorous, hard-headed thinking Friedman claims to espouse much of this reads more like wishful thinking. Friedman essentially wants to have his cake (a classical liberal view of justice) and eat it to (if you follow his normative philosophy you’ll get better outcomes even measured on your different normative philosophy). For example, progressive taxation isn’t just a violation of liberty, it also can make the distribution of income even worse. This is the type of too-good-to-be-true wishful thinking that he would rightfully decry in other circumstances. And it means he avoids some of the tough tradeoffs one would have to consider about whether one prioritizes liberalism as a philosophy or outcomes because they will not both line up.
In Friedman’s defense, he does have a reason—other than pure coincidence—that his normative and positive views line up so closely. Specifically, he argues that public policies are not done randomly or by wise policy mandarins but instead systematically shaped by self-interested parties. These policies can persist because they have a small number of highly visible winners and many invisible losers. He would argue the minimum wage has this feature, being pushed by labor unions to help their members, creating a bunch of visible winners receiving higher wages, and many more people without jobs who may not even realize it was because of the higher minimum wage. (I am not endorsing his view, just describing it—the evidence since his book has, at the very least, cast substantial doubt on this particular argument.)
All of that said, anyone who cares about public policy should think very hard about the imperfections of government, the distortions of rent seekers and regulatory capture, the role of incentives, and unintended consequences. You do not need to agree with Friedman’s every prescription to benefit from better understanding all of these issues and factoring them in to your evaluation of public policy going forward.
veryperi22's review against another edition
4.0
I read Capitalism and Freedom with great interest.
I've been aligning myself with conservative economic policy, with some exceptions, for a while. I read the book with the expectation that this will be *the* book which would really change my views. It will show me that I don't agree with the Republican Right, whose stance on most issues make me uncomfortable, at best.
Alas, I found myself agreeing with a lot of it. Again.
(I'm not sure why I feel the need to almost justify, or apologize for my agreement with conservative economic policy. Something to consider. Does it say something about me or my friends?)
Here are some excerpts that stood out to me, worthy of further discussion.
***
"The consistent liberal is not an anarchist." (liberal in this case meaning capitalist).
***
His stance against big government,
When government intervention is not justified:
Agricultural subsidies
Tariffs and restrictions on imports
Control of output (farm, oil)
Rent control
Minimum wage
Highly regulated industries with agencies to enforce compliance.
Possible limitations of free speech by the FCC
present social security system
Licensing for occupation
Public housing
National parks
Postal service
Unpaid servicemen during peacetime
***
"A liberal is fundamentally fearful of concentrated power."
In reference of stronger local government instead of a centralized
Federal government.
***
"Money's potency is dramatized by Lenin's famous dictum that the most effective way to destroy a society is to destroy its money."
***
"The Great Depression in the United States, far from being the sign of the inherent instability of the private enterprise system, is a testament to how much harm can be done by mistakes on the part of a few men when they wield vast power over the monetary system of a country."
***
"There is no difference in principle between the nationalization of gold at an artificially low price and Fidel Castro's nationalization of land and factories at an artificially low price. On what grounds of principle can the US object to the one after having itself engaged in the other?"
(I'll interject and say it might be different because of the magnitude. I think that little detail is crucial.)
***
"There is every reason to help the poor man who happens to be a farmer, not because he's a farmer, but because he's poor."
***
In his conclusions he proposes a flat tax across the board that would have a negative income tax for the poor as subsidies.
I think it's a system that has merit.
***
I'll leave with this final quote here:-
"The Liberal will therefore distinguish sharply between equality of rights and equality of opportunity on the one hand, and material equality or equality of outcome on the other.
The egalitarian will defend taking from some to give to others, not as a more effective means whereby the "some" can achieve an objective they want to achieve, but on grounds of "justice". At this point, equality comes sharply into conflict with freedom; one must choose. One cannot both be an egalitarian, in this sense, and a liberal."
***
Am I an egalitarian or a liberal ? Never have I thought that these two can be at odds with each other.
I've been aligning myself with conservative economic policy, with some exceptions, for a while. I read the book with the expectation that this will be *the* book which would really change my views. It will show me that I don't agree with the Republican Right, whose stance on most issues make me uncomfortable, at best.
Alas, I found myself agreeing with a lot of it. Again.
(I'm not sure why I feel the need to almost justify, or apologize for my agreement with conservative economic policy. Something to consider. Does it say something about me or my friends?)
Here are some excerpts that stood out to me, worthy of further discussion.
***
"The consistent liberal is not an anarchist." (liberal in this case meaning capitalist).
***
His stance against big government,
When government intervention is not justified:
Agricultural subsidies
Tariffs and restrictions on imports
Control of output (farm, oil)
Rent control
Minimum wage
Highly regulated industries with agencies to enforce compliance.
Possible limitations of free speech by the FCC
present social security system
Licensing for occupation
Public housing
National parks
Postal service
Unpaid servicemen during peacetime
***
"A liberal is fundamentally fearful of concentrated power."
In reference of stronger local government instead of a centralized
Federal government.
***
"Money's potency is dramatized by Lenin's famous dictum that the most effective way to destroy a society is to destroy its money."
***
"The Great Depression in the United States, far from being the sign of the inherent instability of the private enterprise system, is a testament to how much harm can be done by mistakes on the part of a few men when they wield vast power over the monetary system of a country."
***
"There is no difference in principle between the nationalization of gold at an artificially low price and Fidel Castro's nationalization of land and factories at an artificially low price. On what grounds of principle can the US object to the one after having itself engaged in the other?"
(I'll interject and say it might be different because of the magnitude. I think that little detail is crucial.)
***
"There is every reason to help the poor man who happens to be a farmer, not because he's a farmer, but because he's poor."
***
In his conclusions he proposes a flat tax across the board that would have a negative income tax for the poor as subsidies.
I think it's a system that has merit.
***
I'll leave with this final quote here:-
"The Liberal will therefore distinguish sharply between equality of rights and equality of opportunity on the one hand, and material equality or equality of outcome on the other.
The egalitarian will defend taking from some to give to others, not as a more effective means whereby the "some" can achieve an objective they want to achieve, but on grounds of "justice". At this point, equality comes sharply into conflict with freedom; one must choose. One cannot both be an egalitarian, in this sense, and a liberal."
***
Am I an egalitarian or a liberal ? Never have I thought that these two can be at odds with each other.
mdrfromga's review against another edition
4.0
Deep stuff. Friedman makes forceful arguments for capitalism and freedom, as well as how they overlap. It is, however, a difficult read. The heavy use of passive voice makes it more of a grind than it needs to be.
extragravy's review against another edition
3.0
Economic freedom is essential to support political freedom; this is Friedman's main assertion. He makes reasoned arguments based on principles with some philosophical grounding. On numerous points I disagree but any contrary positions would be taken lightly and with caution. He uses a non-American definition of liberalism, one which is most agreeable to me, and which I had to often remind myself about lest an assertion seem unlikely.
This book has been quite influential and for many stands as a flashpoint for overly charged rhetoric and comments based more on feeling and emotion in relation to the current state of politics than on reasoned discussion. I find that a foolish reaction and recommend this book to anyone without regard to current political persuasion as an essential read in economics and one which we should be aware and acquainted. Agreement is not a requirement for benefit.
I keep finding economic related books beneficial to my current line of study, a finding that was not expected but which is very welcome.
This book has been quite influential and for many stands as a flashpoint for overly charged rhetoric and comments based more on feeling and emotion in relation to the current state of politics than on reasoned discussion. I find that a foolish reaction and recommend this book to anyone without regard to current political persuasion as an essential read in economics and one which we should be aware and acquainted. Agreement is not a requirement for benefit.
I keep finding economic related books beneficial to my current line of study, a finding that was not expected but which is very welcome.
rowanmcmichael's review against another edition
4.0
Firstly, I'm having trouble deciding between 4 and 5 stars, as this book is, to me, either a very high B-Tier, or a low A-Tier, so my rating may fluctuate several times while I think it over. Anyways~
Friedman does a brilliant job of portraying the tight intertwining between economics and politics, all but undoing the commonly asserted falsehood that "communism/capitalism is an economic ideology, not a political one!". He instills a beautiful mix of historical reference, ideological generality, and specific implementation that works to explain, support, and give precedent to his ideas.
While at times I find him to be more moderate and realistically more rational than myself, Friedman instills the values of a classical liberal in an effective and non-threatening, palatable way. The way in which he builds upon his thoughts is delightfully meticulous, and incredibly self aware. One of my favorite things about this book is how he will give historical references, but then expands into modern practical use, all the while explicitly stating that historical reference does not outright justify an idea (Marx must be shitting and crying after that one).
Friedman just outlines ideas that I'm not smart enough to properly argue for myself, particularly his section detailing his favor for a school voucher system and, in general, the role that government plays in education.
Friedman also dispels the woke crowd decades ahead of his time, quite impressive! Again, he proves how a free market system does away with racial issues that the government has worked so diligently to place in the forefront of the mind of the general public. He eloquently states how a racial focus is detrimental to the individual in a free market system, and delivers an inspiring slam against the entirely race and color fixated mindset that is so prevalent today. It amazes me how forward thinking and prophetic Friedman is, specifically in how he makes a spot-on prediction regarding racial quotas; "If it is appropriate for the state to say that individuals may not discriminate in employment because of color or race or religion, then it is equally appropriate for the state, provided a majority can be found to vote that way, to say that individuals must discriminate in employment on the basis of color, race or religion. While I do think he paints a picture of a "slippery slope" from time to time, I would also consider this instance to be just that, but its eventual birth into reality makes me reconsider if these other instances are too, just a slippery slope.
Friedman is entirely civil in his argument against a strong, centralized government, in essence giving the age old "road to hell is paved with good intentions" spiel. He avoids the issue of assailing his ideological opponent (for the most part), opting instead to worry about supporting his own argument rather than tearing down the character of "the enemy". In fact, he gives clear acknowledgment that these ideas that he blatantly disagrees with are not, in his eyes, evil, and gives an understanding to what he believes to be wholesome (although faulty) intentions on the part of his adversaries. To elaborate on what was earlier stated, he really only tears down the opposition when necessary to support his view, and he never goes out of his way to debase those which he does seem to consider as fellow intellectuals.
I do, despite all my praises, have disagreements with his assertions. My number one being his claim that: "government is necessary to preserve our freedom". I disagree wholeheartedly, as in my opinion, all rights and freedoms of man are natural and don't need to be granted by some central power. To imply that it is the right and responsibility of the government to protect our freedoms, is also to give them the power of controlling the freedoms we have, which is something that I will never accept. To thank the government of all things for protecting your rights is to thank the man who broke your leg for giving you crutches. I understand and generally agree with his argument that anarchism, while perhaps desirable to the classical liberal, isn't entirely feasible, however I think at times he gives a little more leeway and responsibility to government, which shows, as I stated earlier, that he is perhaps a little more moderate than myself. This leeway is especially evident in his general complacency with certain taxes, namely the income tax. He does, of course, have his critiques and solutions for it, but still I find his willingness for taxation to be a little higher than I would've expected.
There are times when I can get lost in his sea of generalities which he uses to portray his point, sometimes building mass amounts of context to where I've nearly forgotten what he's talking about, but generally speaking, as noted before, he communicates his ideas effectively. He's brought to my attention issues that I had neither the knowledge or awareness of, particularly with licensing which I found to be a fascinating section of his writing.
One of the most important foundations of classical liberalism which Friedman so clearly portrays is the belief in the freedom a man has to be stupid. Rather than some of his well-known ideological adversaries (namely Marx), Friedman explicitly calls against violence, and instead for person to person persuasion with the ultimate acceptance that whatever one's path is, it is theirs to decide.
All in all, though I consider him to be in some aspects more forgiving of authority and more moderate than myself, at times even resembling more of a "Republican-libertarian" (if such a contradiction truly exists), he instills in to the minds of his readers a litany of Classical Liberal ideas and ideals which are enlightening to read.
Friedman does a brilliant job of portraying the tight intertwining between economics and politics, all but undoing the commonly asserted falsehood that "communism/capitalism is an economic ideology, not a political one!". He instills a beautiful mix of historical reference, ideological generality, and specific implementation that works to explain, support, and give precedent to his ideas.
While at times I find him to be more moderate and realistically more rational than myself, Friedman instills the values of a classical liberal in an effective and non-threatening, palatable way. The way in which he builds upon his thoughts is delightfully meticulous, and incredibly self aware. One of my favorite things about this book is how he will give historical references, but then expands into modern practical use, all the while explicitly stating that historical reference does not outright justify an idea (Marx must be shitting and crying after that one).
Friedman just outlines ideas that I'm not smart enough to properly argue for myself, particularly his section detailing his favor for a school voucher system and, in general, the role that government plays in education.
Friedman also dispels the woke crowd decades ahead of his time, quite impressive! Again, he proves how a free market system does away with racial issues that the government has worked so diligently to place in the forefront of the mind of the general public. He eloquently states how a racial focus is detrimental to the individual in a free market system, and delivers an inspiring slam against the entirely race and color fixated mindset that is so prevalent today. It amazes me how forward thinking and prophetic Friedman is, specifically in how he makes a spot-on prediction regarding racial quotas; "If it is appropriate for the state to say that individuals may not discriminate in employment because of color or race or religion, then it is equally appropriate for the state, provided a majority can be found to vote that way, to say that individuals must discriminate in employment on the basis of color, race or religion. While I do think he paints a picture of a "slippery slope" from time to time, I would also consider this instance to be just that, but its eventual birth into reality makes me reconsider if these other instances are too, just a slippery slope.
Friedman is entirely civil in his argument against a strong, centralized government, in essence giving the age old "road to hell is paved with good intentions" spiel. He avoids the issue of assailing his ideological opponent (for the most part), opting instead to worry about supporting his own argument rather than tearing down the character of "the enemy". In fact, he gives clear acknowledgment that these ideas that he blatantly disagrees with are not, in his eyes, evil, and gives an understanding to what he believes to be wholesome (although faulty) intentions on the part of his adversaries. To elaborate on what was earlier stated, he really only tears down the opposition when necessary to support his view, and he never goes out of his way to debase those which he does seem to consider as fellow intellectuals.
I do, despite all my praises, have disagreements with his assertions. My number one being his claim that: "government is necessary to preserve our freedom". I disagree wholeheartedly, as in my opinion, all rights and freedoms of man are natural and don't need to be granted by some central power. To imply that it is the right and responsibility of the government to protect our freedoms, is also to give them the power of controlling the freedoms we have, which is something that I will never accept. To thank the government of all things for protecting your rights is to thank the man who broke your leg for giving you crutches. I understand and generally agree with his argument that anarchism, while perhaps desirable to the classical liberal, isn't entirely feasible, however I think at times he gives a little more leeway and responsibility to government, which shows, as I stated earlier, that he is perhaps a little more moderate than myself. This leeway is especially evident in his general complacency with certain taxes, namely the income tax. He does, of course, have his critiques and solutions for it, but still I find his willingness for taxation to be a little higher than I would've expected.
There are times when I can get lost in his sea of generalities which he uses to portray his point, sometimes building mass amounts of context to where I've nearly forgotten what he's talking about, but generally speaking, as noted before, he communicates his ideas effectively. He's brought to my attention issues that I had neither the knowledge or awareness of, particularly with licensing which I found to be a fascinating section of his writing.
One of the most important foundations of classical liberalism which Friedman so clearly portrays is the belief in the freedom a man has to be stupid. Rather than some of his well-known ideological adversaries (namely Marx), Friedman explicitly calls against violence, and instead for person to person persuasion with the ultimate acceptance that whatever one's path is, it is theirs to decide.
All in all, though I consider him to be in some aspects more forgiving of authority and more moderate than myself, at times even resembling more of a "Republican-libertarian" (if such a contradiction truly exists), he instills in to the minds of his readers a litany of Classical Liberal ideas and ideals which are enlightening to read.
akemi_666's review against another edition
1.0
Commonsensical capitalist rhetoric so deeply entrenched in itself that it not only misrepresents socialism, but betrays liberalism as well.
Freedom becomes a freedom from responsibility, from context, from existence itself. The individual becomes an autonomous abstraction, existing only to partake in fleeting and narrow economic exchanges. Damned be the social, cultural or environmental consequences, because it is only the individual that matters. How many sociologists, psychologists, evolutionary biologists and anthropologists have countered this?
Supposedly one is free from coercion, for one "always has the alternative of producing directly for [themselves], [they] need not enter into any exchange unless [they] benefits from it." Friedman is so detached from reality that it seems he has missed hundreds of years of history, whilst simultaneously becoming blind to the present. Who owns all the grain fields? Capitalism necessarily involves coercion for one must enter into a contract for mere subsistence. These are not contracts with other individuals; they are contracts with enterprises, vessels that subsume all productive output from the individual.
What Friedman advocates is a bourgeois utopia. A freedom for the corporates to do as they please, and a freedom for the majority to be exploited, or to starve.
Freedom becomes a freedom from responsibility, from context, from existence itself. The individual becomes an autonomous abstraction, existing only to partake in fleeting and narrow economic exchanges. Damned be the social, cultural or environmental consequences, because it is only the individual that matters. How many sociologists, psychologists, evolutionary biologists and anthropologists have countered this?
Supposedly one is free from coercion, for one "always has the alternative of producing directly for [themselves], [they] need not enter into any exchange unless [they] benefits from it." Friedman is so detached from reality that it seems he has missed hundreds of years of history, whilst simultaneously becoming blind to the present. Who owns all the grain fields? Capitalism necessarily involves coercion for one must enter into a contract for mere subsistence. These are not contracts with other individuals; they are contracts with enterprises, vessels that subsume all productive output from the individual.
What Friedman advocates is a bourgeois utopia. A freedom for the corporates to do as they please, and a freedom for the majority to be exploited, or to starve.
crestonmd's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
The title says it all. The value system Milton Friedman espouses in this book can be summed up as freedom at all costs as a justification for unfettered capitalism. In the process, he strawmans a few opposing arguments (although not every time) and seems extremely naive about asymmetric information and market imperfections.
One one hand, he ignores several of the flaws with his conclusions and recommendations, but on the other hand, this book has been HIGHLY influential in public policy since its writing and was very much an interesting read in that regard (especially the chapters on monetary policy).
One one hand, he ignores several of the flaws with his conclusions and recommendations, but on the other hand, this book has been HIGHLY influential in public policy since its writing and was very much an interesting read in that regard (especially the chapters on monetary policy).