tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9818962.post7105497216540380874..comments2024-03-20T13:10:11.477+05:30Comments on nanopolitan: Three facets of Milton FriedmanAbihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06790560045313883673noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9818962.post-28097090252542054392007-01-29T23:22:00.000+05:302007-01-29T23:22:00.000+05:30Guru, Anon: You may or may not believe the Hindu's...Guru, Anon: You may or may not believe the <a href="http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/12/stories/2006121201551000.htm">Hindu's pronouncements</a> about Chile's economic health under the Pinochet regime, but I'm sure you would find the <a href="http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8413038">London Economist</a>'s assessment (quoted <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/12/eggs_are_broken.html">here</a>) more believable. Check them out. The Economist, in particular, uses blunt language to describe the kind of disaster the Chicago Boys brought to Chile. <br /><br />Anon: I agree that what people read into articles is usually what affirms their beliefs. <br /><br />However, I can't imagine how an article that raises questions about a person's "intellectual honesty" can be read as anything other than unflattering. See the second paragraph I have quoted. It's not an one-off thing; Krugman keeps returning to this question again and again.Abihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06790560045313883673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9818962.post-58788463050409508872007-01-29T03:16:00.000+05:302007-01-29T03:16:00.000+05:30This particular post is illustrative of the fact t...This particular post is illustrative of the fact that very often, one reads what one wants to in an article. Krugman begins his article by stating that "And just to be clear: although this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man." And the article ends by stating that "In the long run, great men are remembered for their strengths, not their weaknesses, and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed—a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived."<br /><br />Surely, all this doesn't quite add up to a "rather unflattering portrait." The article, rather self-consciously, focuses on Friedman's weaknesses especially in his propagating the "free market" doctrine but nowhere minimizes his greatness as an economist. <br /><br />But I guess, for those whose exposure to Friedman is mainly through his "free marketeer" avatar - and who are not enamoured of this ideology - Friedman is an unflattering figure anyway. So while I read the article as one illustrating the less flattering persona of a very great economist (being an economist myself), others do the reverse - while they may say a few words about Friedman's greatness as an economist, they treat that part as relatively minor while the major and relevant part of his personality is his public intellectual avatar. There's no way of deciding whose view is "right" and it is in this sense, we each read what we want to in an article.<br /><br />Anyway, regarding Chile -- Surely, a decade back, Chile *was* an economic success as compared to its Latin American neighbours. (It still is an economic success.) At that point, many did attribute that to the policies espoused by Friedman. Are you disputing that about a decade back -- what with Brazil and Argentina's financial crises -- that Chile was an economic success? And that credit for this was attributed to "free market" policies? What exactly is your point?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9818962.post-24814006089949859472007-01-28T02:13:00.000+05:302007-01-28T02:13:00.000+05:30Dear Abi,
Tyler Cowen at MR however, says :
"Pin...Dear Abi,<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/12/how_good_was_pi.html"> Tyler Cowen at MR however, says </a>:<br />"Pinochet the man behaved so badly, both during his term and after, as to be morally indefensible. From second hand accounts I have heard, it is also not clear how much the man himself was personally responsible for the good economic policies. Still many good policies happened. We need a closer look at the Chilean economic legacy, which is a complicated story and by no means wholly negative.<br /><br />Addendum: It is worth asking which reforms could have succeeded in a democratic environment, but that would require a post all its own. Someday you will get it."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com