So, we bring to you a new tidbit from Klein. Econ Job Market Rumors, a forum for economics graduate students which often delves into other topics, has a quite interesting post relating to Milton Friedman and Naomi Klein. The OP (original poster) links to a new (to us) gem from Klein, an interview with C-SPAN.  Klein herself, in general as well as specifically in this interview, does more than her opponents have ever done to discredit her. Enjoy!

In particular, catch her response when asked to define Friedman vs. Keynes at the 6:30 mark. Brilliant.

It is a short and sweet piece addressing the Pinochet regime, the Chicago boys, and Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” myth. Stephens suggests that the implementation of Friedman’s economic ideas in Chile led to better building codes and fewer fatalities than January’s 7.0 Haitian earthquake:

In “The Shock Doctrine,” Ms. Klein titles one of her sub-chapters “The Myth of the Chilean Miracle.” In her reading, the only thing Friedman and the Chicago Boys accomplished was to “hoover wealth up to the top and shock much of the middle class out of existence.” Actual Chileans of all classes—living in the aftermath of an actual shock—may take a different view of Friedman, who helped give them the wherewithal first to survive the quake, and now to build their lives anew.

If you’re in the Chicago area, don’t forget to visit the Milton Friedman Institute website for event updates, including the upcoming workshop on Ronald Coase!

An excerpt from Carden:

There is an implicit contract between an author and a reader. An author who makes strong, controversial claims must get the facts straight and tie those facts together with a clear, convincing theoretical framework. Sadly, Klein does not live up to her end of the bargain. Where her claims demand evidence she offers impressionistic associations. Where her claims need critical evaluation of theories of economic development we are treated to moralistic crusading which seem to assume that the “best” model of a virtuous, prosperous society is self-evident and that the only thing standing in the way is a group of blinkered ideologues and evil people shouting quotes from Capitalism and Freedom to one another rather than listening to those who are blessed with Truth. Where her thesis needs plausible, detailed analysis whereby Klein’s claims are established, we get the assertion that Margaret Thatcher started the Falklands War so she could crush British unions, one of what Tyler Cowen (2007) called “a series of fabricated claims.”

Well, not quite. Although the above is exactly what faculty opposing MFI, CORES, led the campus to believe would happen, it can’t be further from the truth.  In fact, the first (as far as we can tell) guest lecture hosted by MFI centers on synergies between the behavioral sciences and economics by one of the most important scholars in the field.  This intersection of social sciences is exactly where economics seems to be headed, and the MFI can only help the University of Chicago in its interdisciplinary efforts by bringing scholars like Fehr to campus.

Ernst Fehr, University of Zurich, presents:  ”Social Preferences – A Foundation of Cooperation, Competition, and Incentives”

Thursday, May 7:  3:30 pm – 5:00 pm
Classics 110,  1010 East 59th Street, Chicago, IL 60637

This lecture examines how the consideration of social preferences affects economic outcomes.  For a long time, the behavioral sciences – including economics – have largely neglected people’s social motives. However, evidence suggests that a substantial number of people exhibit social preferences, which means they are not solely motivated by material self-interest but also care positively or negatively about the material payoffs to other persons.  Evidence will be presented indicating that economists fail to understand fundamental economic questions when they disregard social preferences.  In particular, when social preferences are ignored, it is not possible to adequately understand  (i) the effects of competition on market outcomes, (ii) the forces governing cooperation and collective action, (iii) the effects and the determinants of material incentives, (iv) which contracts and property rights arrangements are optimal, and (v) important forces shaping social norms and market failures.

Heckman [MFI supporter] also approached what should probably be called the Friedman myth, for instance as articulated by Amit and Rothenberg [MFI detractors]. This is the myth that Friedman was an authoritarian liberal. Sahlins made a classic anthropological observation that symbols are indeed false — and that their falsehood is irrelevant. So the Friedman myth may be a myth, a false story, but it is still subjectively true for the people who believe it.

The post goes on to discuss Friedman’s legacy as relates to his association with authoritarian regimes, noting that:

Assuming for the sake of argument that Friedman was not culpable as an abettor of oppressive government, what is the response to the symbolic-mythical argument? The latter argument is that inasmuch as Friedman is a symbol of authoritarian liberalism, and this has bad associations for many, many people in the world, is this itself a strong or decisive argument for not naming the Institute after him? It seems to me that the answer is No: If there is a myth that you think is wrong, and you (i.e. the University) do not have yourself to fear repercussions of opposing that myth, then you should oppose that myth. By taking the name of the Milton Friedman Institute, the University can say, we do not support the further propagation of this basically wrong story about one of our highly acclaimed scholars.

Check it out here.

And what happened? Did the Republican administration summon up the spirit of Milton Friedman and cut government spending? Did it deregulate and privatise?

No.

It did what governments actually do in a crisis – it seized new powers over the economy.

Obama’s plan to do the same thing, his shiny new stimulus plan, was discussed by University of Chicago economists last month . The video is available here.  It’s a fascinating and occasionally humorous look at the real economics of the stimulus plan, and in particular our audience may be interested in Robert Lucas’s mentions of Milton Friedman at approx. 33:00 and 37:30.

He goes on to say that no one is standing up for the promise and proven track record of capitalism. We had Milton Friedman to do that until a couple of years ago, but now it seems that no one has his ability to disarm his intellectual opponents by challenging their most basic assumptions about greed, incentives and bureaucracy.

Speaking of greed, check out the video below in which Dr. Friedman answers Donahue’s question on the human tendency for greed that is unleashed (and put to productive use) under free market capitalism.

Donahue later says that capitalism seems to reward the ability of people to manipulate the system.

Friedman asks another question: “Who rewards virtue?” Do presidents, commissars or kings reward virtue?

“Where in the world,” Friedman asks, “do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?”