www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/04/21/the-truth-about-milton-friedman/The Truth about Milton Friedman
Peter Goodman writes in the New York Times that we live in a laissez-faire world created by Milton Friedman and that that wild, unfettered market has led to our current economic problems. David Henderson, the first editor of Cato Policy Report, begs to differ. David R. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution, an economics professor in the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School, and the editor of The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (Liberty Fund, 2008). Here’s his critique of the Times article:
In the April 13 New York Times, economics reporter Peter S. Goodman takes “A Fresh Look at the Apostle of Free Markets,” the late Milton Friedman. Goodman’s goal seems to be to persuade the reader that we’re emerging from an era of laissez-faire that Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman implemented together, that laissez-faire didn’t work, and that now we need to reregulate. No, really. I’m not kidding. That seems to be what he’s saying.
Now, Peter is a nice guy. He’s interviewed me a few times and we had a nice hour-long talk at the Hoover Institution earlier this year. But his article is full of confusions and misstatements and is crying out for an answer. Here’s mine. The quotes from Peter’s article are indented and my answers follow.
Joblessness is growing. Millions of homes are sliding into foreclosure. The financial system continues to choke on the toxic leftovers of the mortgage crisis. The downward spiral of the economy is challenging a notion that has underpinned American economic policy for a quarter-century — the idea that prosperity springs from markets left free of government interference.
The first two sentences are probably correct. The third might be correct. The fourth, the most important in the paragraph, is badly wrong. Markets haven’t been seriously free of regulation since before the Great Depression. There were some major deregulatory victories—in airlines, railroads, and trucking—but interestingly, these victories preceded the last quarter century—they happened in the late 1970s and 1980, under President Jimmy Carter. And they led to good results—cheaper air travel and shipping and more accountability for truckers and railroads, to name two. It’s true that people give lip service to economic freedom. But the current president nationalized prescription drugs for the elderly, nationalized airport security except in five cities, and dramatically expanded federal intervention in education. The previous Congress banned Internet gambling and the current Congress has banned certain kinds of light bulbs. The government is now pushing people into more-expensive sources of energy. State and local governments have passed laws that prevent owners of bars and restaurants from allowing smoking. Congress in the 1990s started to dictate that insurance policies cover certain medical procedures. And notably, federal regulations from mortgage subsidies to the Community Reinvestment Act encouraged ill-advised investments. Those are some of the increases in government regulation. There have been few decreases.
The modern-day godfather of that credo was Milton Friedman, who attributed the worst economic unraveling in American history to regulators, declaring in a 1976 essay that “the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement.”
True. And, by the way, Friedman got this one right as even that superregulator, Ben Bernanke admitted. At Friedman’s 90th birthday party, Bernanke said, “I would like to say to Milton and Anna [Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
Five years later, Ronald Reagan entered the White House, elevating Mr. Friedman’s laissez-faire ideals into a veritable set of commandments.
Oh, really? Within a few months, Reagan had persuaded the Japanese government to forcibly limit the number of cars the Japanese auto companies could sell to the United States. And Reagan left almost all federal regulations in place.
Taxes were cut, regulations slashed and public industries sold into private hands, all in the name of clearing government from the path to riches.
Reagan did cut taxes in 1981–and then raised them in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987.
As the economy expanded and inflation abated, Mr. Friedman played the role of chief evangelist in the mission to let loose the animal instincts of the market.
This certainly is a “fresh” look at Milton Friedman. It’s also wrong. I don’t think Friedman ever thought that in advocating that humans be freer, he was advocating letting loose “animal instincts.” Animals act far more like governments—that is, they use force against their competitors—than like peaceful market participants.
But with market forces now seemingly gone feral, disenchantment with regulation has given way to demands for fresh oversight, placing Mr. Friedman’s intellectual legacy under fresh scrutiny.
Unfortunately, Goodman doesn’t say how market forces have gone feral. Government remains feral and government seems poised to use more force against more victims, but how markets do that is beyond me. As for Friedman’s intellectual legacy, or anyone else’s, fresh scrutiny is always good. You won’t find any of it in Goodman’s article, though.
Just as the Depression remade government’s role in economic life, bringing jobs programs and an expanded welfare system, the current downturn has altered the balance.
But wait a minute. The Depression did alter the balance, increasing government power at the expense of people’s freedom dramatically. Very few Depression-era programs were ended. We’re still stuck with the SEC, agricultural subsidies, welfare, and Social Security. Moreover, every president after Franklin Roosevelt increased government power, often, as with LBJ (Great Society), Nixon (price controls, OSHA, and EPA), and Bush Jr. (No Child Left Behind, nationalization of two industries), substantially. So how can the current downturn alter the balance? We’ve been moving away from economic freedom for 80 years. (Herbert Hoover began what really should be called a mini-New Deal.) How can more government programs alter the balance?
As Wall Street, Main Street and Pennsylvania Avenue seethe with recriminations, a bipartisan chorus has decided that unfettered markets are in need of fettering. Bailouts, stimulus spending and regulations dominate the conversation.
It would be more accurate to say, “a bipartisan chorus has decided that fettered markets need to be fettered more.” But that doesn’t have the same ring, does it?
In short, the nation steeped in the thinking of a man who blamed government for the Depression now beseeches government to lift it to safety.
So if the nation is “steeped in the thinking of a man who blamed government for the Depression,” wouldn’t you expect most people to have, until recently, “blamed government for the Depression”? Is that really what Goodman perceives? It’s not what my students think when they start out in my class. Nor is it what their parents think. Where is Goodman getting his information?
If Mr. Friedman, who died in 2006, were still among us, he would surely be unhappy with this turn.
Amen, brother. Goodman finally got one right.
“What Milton Friedman said was that government should not interfere,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics Inc., a consulting group. “It didn’t work. We now are looking at one of the greatest real estate busts of all time. The free market is not geared to take care of the casualties, because there’s no profit motive. There’s no market incentive to deal with the unemployed or those who have lost their homes.”
Where do I begin? Sinai’s first statement is true. But his second statement? How could he say that not having government interfere didn’t work when through the whole era being discussed, government interfered? Even if you were a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of government interference, you couldn’t make Sinai’s statement because throughout that era we had massive government interference. And what are we to make of Sinai’s statement that the “free market is not geared to take care of casualties”? Has he heard of insurance? It’s a free-market way of taking care of casualties. And there’s no profit motive? Huh? People don’t want to make profits? And there certainly is a “market incentive to deal with the unemployed or those who have lost their homes.” Employers deal with the unemployed through markets all the time—by hiring them. And people who have lost their homes still want a place to live and so property owners want to deal with them by renting to them.
To Mr. Friedman, such sentiments, when turned into policy, deprived the economy of the vibrancy of market forces.
Somewhat true, but overstated. One of Milton’s favorite lines was one from Adam Smith: “There is much ruin in a nation.” He once explained to me that that meant that a whole lot of things can go wrong, and government can mess things up in many ways, but the desire to better ourselves can still make markets work.
Born in Brooklyn in 1912 to immigrant parents who worked briefly in sweatshops, Mr. Friedman retained a sense that America was a land of opportunity with ample rewards for the hard-working.
True.