George H. Nash, a leading historian of American conservatism, says that by "the end of the 1960s he was probably the most highly regarded and influential conservative scholar in the country, and one of the few with an international reputation". In 1971, Friedman received the Golden Plate Award of the
American Academy of Achievement. Friedman allowed the libertarian
Cato Institute to use his name for its biennial
Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty beginning in 2001. A Friedman Prize was given to the late British economist
Peter Bauer in 2002, Peruvian economist
Hernando de Soto in 2004,
Mart Laar, former Estonian Prime Minister in 2006 and a young Venezuelan student
Yon Goicoechea in 2008. His wife Rose, sister of
Aaron Director, with whom he initiated the
Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, served on the international selection committee. Upon Friedman's death, Harvard President
Lawrence Summers called him "The Great Liberator", saying "any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites." He said Friedman's great popular contribution was "in convincing people of the importance of allowing free markets to operate".
Stephen Moore, a member of the editorial board of
The Wall Street Journal, said in 2013: "Quoting the most-revered champion of free-market economics since
Adam Smith has become a little like quoting the Bible." He adds, "There are sometimes multiple and conflicting interpretations." Although
post-Keynesian economist
J. K. Galbraith was a prominent critic of Friedman and his ideology, he observed that "The age of
John Maynard Keynes gave way to the age of Milton Friedman."
Hong Kong Friedman said, "If you want to see
capitalism in action, go to Hong Kong." He wrote in 1990 that the
Hong Kong economy was perhaps the best example of a
free market economy. One month before his death, he wrote "Hong Kong Wrong – What would
Cowperthwaite say?" in
The Wall Street Journal, criticizing
Donald Tsang, Chief Executive of Hong Kong, for abandoning "positive non interventionism". Tsang later said he was merely changing the slogan to "big market, small government", where small government is defined as less than 20% of GDP. In a debate between Tsang and his rival
Alan Leong before the
2007 Hong Kong Chief Executive election, Leong introduced the topic and jokingly accused Tsang of angering Friedman to death (Friedman had died only a year prior).
Chile During 1975, two years after the
military coup that brought
military dictator Augusto Pinochet to power and ended the
government of Salvador Allende, the economy of Chile experienced a severe crisis. Friedman and
Arnold Harberger accepted an invitation of a private Chilean foundation to visit Chile and speak on principles of
economic freedom. He spent seven days in Chile giving a series of lectures at the
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile and the
University of Chile. One of the lectures was entitled "The Fragility of Freedom" and according to Friedman, "dealt with precisely the threat to freedom from a centralized military government." In a letter to Pinochet of April 21, 1975, Friedman considered the "key economic problems of Chile are clearly ... inflation and the promotion of a healthy
social market economy". He stated that "There is only one way to end inflation: by drastically reducing the rate of increase of the quantity of money" and that "cutting government spending is by far and away the most desirable way to reduce the fiscal deficit, because it ... strengthens the private sector thereby laying the foundations for
healthy economic growth".
Sergio de Castro, a Chilean Chicago School graduate, became the nation's Minister of Finance in 1975. A foreign exchange program was created between the
Catholic University of Chile and the
University of Chicago. Many other Chicago School alumni were appointed government posts during and after Pinochet's dictatorship; others taught its economic doctrine at Chilean universities. They became known as the
Chicago Boys. Friedman defended his activity in Chile on the grounds that, in his opinion, the adoption of free market policies not only improved the economic situation of Chile but also contributed to the amelioration of
Pinochet's rule and to the eventual
transition to a democratic government during 1990. That idea is included in
Capitalism and Freedom, in which he declared that economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for
political freedom. In his 1980 documentary
Free to Choose, he said the following: "Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies because government plays a smaller role. ... The conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system." In 1984, Friedman stated that he has "never refrained from criticizing the political system in Chile". He stressed that the lectures he gave in Chile were the same lectures he later gave in China and other socialist states. He further stated "I do not consider it as evil for an economist to render technical economic advice to the Chilean Government, any more than I would regard it as evil for a physician to give technical medical advice to the Chilean Government to help end a medical plague." During the 2000 PBS documentary
The Commanding Heights (based on
the book), Friedman continued to argue that "free markets would undermine [Pinochet's] political centralization and political control", and that criticism over his role in Chile missed his main contention that freer markets resulted in freer people, and that
Chile's unfree economy had caused Pinochet's rise. Friedman advocated for free markets which undermined "political centralization and political control". Because of his involvement with the government of Chile, which was a dictatorship at the time of his visit, there were international protests, spanning from Sweden to America when Friedman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in 1976. Friedman was accused of supporting the military dictatorship in Chile because of the relation of economists of the University of Chicago to Pinochet, and a seven-day trip he took to Chile during March 1975 (less than two years after the coup that ended with the death of President Salvador Allende). Friedman answered that he was never an advisor to the dictatorship, but only gave some lectures and seminars on inflation, and met with officials, including Augusto Pinochet the head of the military dictatorship, while in Chile. After a 1991 speech on drug legalization, Friedman answered a question on his involvement with the Pinochet regime. Friedman said that he was never an advisor to Pinochet (also mentioned in his 1984 Iceland interview), but that a group of University of Chicago students were involved in Chile's economic reforms. Friedman credited these reforms with high levels of economic growth and with the establishment of democracy that has subsequently occurred in Chile. In October 1988, after returning from a lecture tour of China during which he had met with
Zhao Ziyang,
General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Friedman wrote to The Stanford Daily asking if he should anticipate a similar "avalanche of protests for having been willing to give advice to so evil a government? And if not, why not?"
Iceland Friedman visited
Iceland during the autumn of 1984, met with important Icelanders and gave a lecture at the University of Iceland on the "tyranny of the
status quo". He participated in a lively television debate on August 31, 1984, with socialist intellectuals, including
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who later became
President of Iceland. When they complained that a fee was charged for attending his lecture at the university and that, hitherto, lectures by visiting scholars had been free-of-charge, Friedman replied that previous lectures had not been free-of-charge in a meaningful sense: lectures always have related costs. What mattered was whether attendees or non-attendees covered those costs. Friedman thought that it was fairer that only those who attended paid. In this discussion Friedman also stated that he did not receive any money for delivering that lecture.
Estonia Although Friedman never visited
Estonia, his book
Free to Choose influenced Estonia's then 32-year-old prime minister,
Mart Laar, who has claimed that it was the only book on economics he had read before taking office. Laar's reforms are often credited with responsibility for transforming Estonia from an impoverished
Soviet republic to the "
Baltic Tiger". A prime element of Laar's program was introduction of the
flat tax. Laar won the
2006 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, awarded by the
Cato Institute.
United Kingdom After 1950, Friedman was frequently invited to lecture in Britain; by the 1970s, his ideas had gained widespread attention in conservative circles. For example, he was a regular speaker at the
Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a libertarian think tank.
Conservative politician
Margaret Thatcher closely followed IEA programs and ideas and met Friedman there in 1978. He also strongly influenced
Keith Joseph, who became Thatcher's senior advisor on economic affairs, as well as Alan Walters and Patrick Minford, two other key advisers. Major newspapers, including the
Daily Telegraph, The Times, and
The Financial Times all promulgated Friedman's monetarist ideas to British decision-makers. Friedman's ideas strongly influenced Thatcher and her allies when she became Prime Minister in 1979. Galbraith strongly criticised the "workability of the Friedmanite formula" for which, he said, "Britain has volunteered to be the guinea pig".
United States After his death a number of obituaries and articles were written in Friedman's honor, citing him as one of the most important and influential economists of the
post-war era. Milton Friedman's somewhat controversial legacy in America remains strong within the
conservative movement. However, some journalists and economists like Noah Smith and
Scott Sumner have argued Friedman's academic legacy has been buried under his political philosophy and misinterpreted by modern conservatives.
Criticism of published works Friedman's exogenous money supply theory has been deeply criticized by British
Post-Keynesian economist
Nicholas Kaldor in the 1970s. While Friedman and monetarist economists claimed that the money supply was exogenously created by a powerful central bank, Kaldor claimed that the money was created by
second-tier banks through the distribution of credits to
households and
companies. In the Post-Keynesian framework, central banks simply refinance second-tier banks on demand but are not in the core of monetary creation. Milton Friedman and Nicholas Kaldor were involved in a fierce debate in 1969–70, in which the monetarist economist had the upper hand. In 1982, Kaldor published a book entitled
The Scourge of Monetarism, deeply criticizing monetarist-inspired policies. Econometrician
David Hendry criticized part of Friedman's and Anna Schwartz's 1982
Monetary Trends. When asked about it during an interview with Icelandic TV in 1984, Friedman said that the criticism referred to a different problem from that which he and Schwartz had tackled, and hence was irrelevant, and pointed out the lack of consequential peer review amongst econometricians on Hendry's work. In 2006, Hendry said that Friedman was guilty of "serious errors" of misunderstanding that meant "the t-ratios he reported for UK money demand were overstated by nearly 100 per cent", and said that, in a paper published in 1991 with Neil Ericsson, he had refuted "almost every empirical claim ... made about UK money demand" by Friedman and Schwartz. A 2004 paper updated and confirmed the validity of the Hendry–Ericsson findings through 2000. Some commentators believe that Friedman was not open enough, in their view, to the possibility of market inefficiencies. Economist Noah Smith argues that while Friedman made many important contributions to economic theory not all of his ideas relating to macroeconomics have entirely held up over the years and that too few people are willing to challenge them. Political scientist
C. B. Macpherson disagreed with Friedman's historical assessment of economic freedom leading to political freedom, suggesting that political freedom actually gave way to economic freedom for property-owning elites. He also challenged the notion that markets efficiently allocated resources and rejected
Friedman's definition of liberty. Friedman's
positivist methodological approach to economics has also been critiqued and debated. Finnish economist
Uskali Mäki argued some of his assumptions were unrealistic and vague. Friedman has been criticized by some prominent
Austrian economists, including
Murray Rothbard and
Walter Block. Block called Friedman a
"socialist" and was critical of his support for a
central banking system, saying "First and foremost, this economist supported the
Federal Reserve System all throughout his professional life. That organization of course does not own the
money stock, but controls it. Friedman was an inveterate hater of the
gold standard, denigrating its advocates as 'gold bugs'." Rothbard criticized Friedman's conclusion that the
Great Depression happened as a result of a
deflationary spiral, arguing that this is inconsistent with the data, even though during the period described by Friedman as "The Great Contraction", the
money supply did in fact decrease year-over-year by over 10 percentage points. Although the book was described by the
Cato Institute as among the greatest economics books in the 20th century, and
A Monetary History of the United States is widely considered to be among the most influential economics books ever made, it has endured criticisms for its conclusion that the
Federal Reserve was to blame for the
Great Depression. Some economists, including noted Friedman critic
Peter Temin, have raised questions about the legitimacy of Friedman's claims about whether or not
monetary quantity levels were
endogenous rather than
exogenously determined, as
A Monetary History of the United States posits. Nobel-prize winning economist
Paul Krugman argued that the
2008 recession proved that, during a recession, a
central bank cannot control
broad money (
M3 money, as defined by the
OECD), and even if it can, the
money supply does not bear a direct or proven relationship with GDP. According to Krugman, this was true in the 1930s, and the claim that the Federal Reserve could have avoided the Great Depression by reacting to what Friedman called
The Great Contraction is "highly dubious".
James Tobin questioned the importance of
velocity of money, and how informative this measure of the frequency of transactions is to the understanding of the various fluctuations observed in
A Monetary History of the United States.
Economic historian Barry Eichengreen argued that because of the
gold standard, which was at this point in time the chief monetary system of the world, the
Federal Reserve's hands were tied. This was because, to retain the credibility of the gold standard, the Federal Reserve could not undertake actions like dramatically expanding the money supply as proposed by Friedman and Schwartz.
Lawrence Mishel, distinguished fellow of the
Economic Policy Institute, argues that wages have been kept low in the United States because of the
Friedman doctrine, namely the adoption of corporate practices and
economic policies (or the blocking of reforms) at the behest of business and the
wealthy elite, which resulted in the systematic
disempowerment of workers. He argues that the lack of worker power caused wage suppression, increased
wage inequality, and exacerbated racial disparities. Notably, mechanisms such as excessive unemployment,
globalization, eroded
labor standards (and their lack of enforcement), weakened
collective bargaining, and corporate structure changes that disadvantage workers, all collectively functioned to keep wages low. From 1980 to 2020, while economy-wide productivity rose almost 70 percent, hourly compensation for typical workers increased less than 12 percent, while the earnings of the top 1 percent and 0.1 percent increased 158 percent and 341 percent, respectively. == Selected bibliography ==