Friday, November 24, 2006

More on Milton Friedman

When a foul-smelling, stuck-on stupid-leftist starts ranting about Friedman's advice to Chile under Pinochet consider the following and consider how small all of them are for even uttering John K. Galbraith in the same sentence as the Wunderkind from the University of Chicago.

Fortunately for Friedman-haters, Friedman tainted himself by traveling to Chile and meeting with General Pinochet, the most hated military dictator in the western hemisphere. The Left used Friedman?s visit to Chile to brand him as a fascist, an accusation that was widely disseminated among universities around the world and which resulted in protests and disruptions at his Nobel award ceremony. This sentiment is alive and well today ? The Democratic Underground's discussion of Friedman?s death includes comments such as "Memo to Pinochet ? Your buddy just went to hell and is waiting for you" among its less vulgar sentiments.

When I entered Harvard in 1979, it was commonplace in most circles to refer to Friedman as evil without debate, reflection, or justification.

Now, of course, Chile has a democratic government, the strongest economy in Latin America, and a surging middle class ? all legacies of Friedman?s influence. More relevant to the claim that Friedman was tainted through his one conversation with Pinochet is the fact that he later went to China and gave very much the same advice to Chinese leaders as he had given to Chilean leaders ? and no one even remarked upon the trip, despite the fact that the repression practiced by the Chinese government makes Pinochet look like an amateur.

Friedman was, in fact, critical of the Pinochet regime and clearly stated that his goal was to alleviate human suffering based on economic dysfunction, which he did so superbly. By contrast, J. K. Galbraith visited Mao?s China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system, which had caused incomparable misery.

Focus on this: Friedman is tainted by one conversation with a dictator, whom he openly criticized, and the advice he provides ultimately brings great benefits to the people. Galbraith is not tainted by praising one of the most ruthless tyrants in human history, after disseminating his own advice, which has brought poverty to every developing nation which followed it.

By any reasonable human rights standard, Galbraith?s praise of China should be regarded with the loathing still associated in some circles of Friedman, whereas Friedman?s support of successful economic policies in Chile should be regarded as far-sighted and heroic. But we must await another generation of historians to write justly and honestly about the 20th century before that is likely to happen.

Friedman?s long-standing recognition of the economic policies that enriched Hong Kong, combined with his direct policy proposals to Chinese leaders, contributed to the spread of Hong Kong-like special economic zones across eastern China, which are now bringing a million people a month out of poverty. At current rates of economic growth, China is expected to reach a U.S. standard of living in 2030. India, after a shift from Galbraithian policies in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, began to embrace free market reforms in the 80s and 90s. At recent rates of economic growth they will reach a U.S. standard of living in 2050. If China and India had both followed Friedmanite policies in 1947, it is likely that each nation would be as wealthy as Hong Kong, which has a higher per capita GDP than Britain. (See Bill Easterly's article in this year's Fraser Institute Report on Economic Freedom for evidence on the correlation between economic freedom and per capita GDP).

Tens of thousands of NGOs devote millions of hours and billions of dollars in the effort to alleviate poverty, empower women, reduce child prostitution, and reduce violent conflict. If every scholar at every university had promoted Friedmanite policies throughout the 20th century, most of this work would be unnecessary. Poverty in the developed world exists, but it is a ?poverty? which often includes televisions, cell phones, refrigerators, air conditioning, and obesity. There are billions of truly poor people who would risk death by crossing deserts or oceans in order to achieve this kind of poverty...

No comments: