Who is the Milton Friedman of today?
I agree with every single word of this Tyler Cowen Youtube.
BTW, who was the Tyler Cowen of 40 years ago? Was there anyone?
HT: Daniel J.
Tags:
37 Responses to “Who is the Milton Friedman of today?”
Leave a Reply
A slightly off-center perspective on monetary problems.
I agree with every single word of this Tyler Cowen Youtube.
BTW, who was the Tyler Cowen of 40 years ago? Was there anyone?
HT: Daniel J.
Tags:
This entry was posted on September 26th, 2013
and is filed under Misc..
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or Trackback from your own site.
37 Responses to “Who is the Milton Friedman of today?”
Leave a Reply
26. September 2013 at 12:37
That BTW line is really Cowen-esque.
26. September 2013 at 13:37
The link is as broken as the QE transmission mechanism!
26. September 2013 at 14:12
Thanks John.
RyGuy, The link works fine, as does QE.
26. September 2013 at 15:12
The video link worked fine for me but there is an unusual encoding in it that I’m guessing can cause havoc if someone has security software that blocks urls that don’t conform to standards. (The Mercatus page with the embedded video does not have that unusual encoding so I’m at a loss to explain from where it came.) Here’s a cleaner url for Tyler’s video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDxcURE7sJs
26. September 2013 at 15:29
Matt O’Brien’s beautiful new post: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/unveiled-lenins-brilliant-plot-to-destroy-capitalism/280006/
26. September 2013 at 16:03
Yup, there’s a real benefit for Krugman in that policy makers have not taken his advice. Imagine if he had to answer for the results of 70-90% tax rates, a unionized, bureaucratized labor force, high minimum wages and government spending well over 50% of GDP. For the sake of the USA, I hope he never has to answer for it.
26. September 2013 at 22:25
Name a single public policy idea from Paul Krugman to match in any tiny measure Milton Friedman’s ideas and arguments in the areas of military service, the citizen’s relation to education, welfare distribution, etc.
Name one.
Name a single book or TV series from Paul Krugman to match in any tiny measure in terms or sales, substantive sweep or influence either Friedman’s Free to Choose or Capitalism and Freedom.
Name one.
Name a single President who sought the advice of Krugman, put to work Krugman, or employed Krugman’s ideas in any tiny measure as Friedman was involved with Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and their administrations.
Name one.
Name one article or speech or book by Krugman that played a role in changing the minds of the economics profession the way Friedman’s papers, speeches and books on the consumption function, economic methodology, US monetary history, the natural rate of employments, expectations & the Philips Curve.
Name one.
The idea that Krugman is a Friedman is a joke.
26. September 2013 at 22:49
Here is the Friedman of today on the secular decline in rates, and an argument for permanent fiscal stimulus: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/bubbles-regulation-and-secular-stagnation/?_r=1
I kind of agree with Greg, actually.
26. September 2013 at 23:37
Scott,
You might have seen this already, but I thought it was another example of monetary policymakers ignoring or discounting market signals.
In a Bernanke speech in 2006 he says,
“Although macroeconomic forecasting is fraught with hazards, I would not interpret the currently very flat yield curve as indicating a significant economic slowdown to come, for several reasons.”
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20060320a.htm
21st paragraph.
27. September 2013 at 02:45
Ladies and Gentlemen!
Paul Krugman has reached out to the Ayn Rand amongst us!
It’s nearly unbelievable.
If only Krugman was SMART ENOUGH to take the deal his logic dictates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/opinion/krugman-plutocrats-feeling-persecuted.html?_r=0
Ya know, I spend lots of time splaining to y’all, that game play in the US is a tri-party system, and the reason the poor get poorer is bc they and their knights, like PK and DeLong get stuck thinking about two player game play – likely from ego.
The A power is the top 1/3, who spend part of their earning life in the top 20%. They have the most money and they have half the votes.
The B power are the plutocrats, they have no votes and only money.
And the C power are the bottom 2/3. have only votes.
In A / B game play, is R vs D, it’s 99% vs 1%.
In A / B / C play, the weakest player the C play, this is China in Cold War, they maximize their outcome by routinely siding with A or B to their greatest outcome.
China KNEW it was China.
The bottom 2/3 in America DO NOT KNOW they are China.
They don’t know they are China bc Paul Krugman NEVER EVER SAYS:
“But these men were speaking for, not against, redistribution “” redistribution from the 99 percent to people like them. This isn’t libertarianism; it’s a demand for special treatment. It’s not Ayn Rand; it’s ancien régime.”
Until yesterday!
Finally!
Suddenly there is a deal on the table! A deal that the top 1/3, the Tea Party can agree to!
Krugman actually lays it out clearly:
“Our so-called recovery has done nothing much for ordinary workers, but incomes at the top have soared, with almost all the gains from 2009 to 2012 going to the top 1 percent, and almost a third going to the top 0.01 percent “” that is, people with incomes over $10 million.”
You have to look closely to see it, but it is right there.
Krugman is ANGRY.
Krugman wants the top .01% to not get 1/3 of the gains since 2009!
Great!
So the deal is, we need a tax system that GIVES THE TEA PARTY, the top 1/3 of America the $$$ that went to the .01%.
This will mean more people buying massages from China!
This will mean more people gong out to dinner and employing Chinese!
This will mean more kids going to niche lessons taught by the Chinese!
Look, if you don’t know you are China, if you don’t see the game as your job is to keep from getting crushed while the Tea Party and the Plutocrats have a battle royale like Godzilla and Gigan…
You will be idiot enough to put on a halloween costume, and suit up against your imaginary opponent, while gigan (the plutocrats) convince you to lump them in the hero Godzilla (the Tea Party).
But Krugman has finally either seen or finally told the truth.
The Ayn Rand crowd can be trusted to BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF THE PLUTOCRATS, bc they have more money, and if the Dems and Paul Krugman REALLY want to help the bottom 2/3, they just have to put a deal ont he table that screws the plutcrats and fattens up the top 1/3.
This is of course #distributism.
And slowly over time, both sides are coming tot he realization that if you go after guys making $1M year, you scare plenty of folks only making $100K.
BUT, you can totally go after the guys making $10M per year, you just have assure the guys making $100K you are on THEIR TEAM, you have to let them KEEP THE SPOLIS.
The day the Democrats craft a tax policy that takes from the guys making $10M a year and gives it to the guys making $100K…
That day we’ll see a unanimous vote in Congress, it is a pitchfork-less non-violent total molestation of the plutocrats, they will be humbled by their newly exposed nakedness.
But it can’t happen, won’t happen, until the bottom 2/3 are told by Paul Krugman that they are China.
And yesterday is the first time it happened.
27. September 2013 at 04:35
Scott,
It’s interesting, because even though Tyler Cowen argues pretty persuasively that PK is today’s Milton Friedman, the biggest difference that he points to makes the rest of the similarities moot. The difference is that Milton Friedman shaped policy, and Paul Krugman most certainly has not. What else matters? Krugman is a bad comparison, because his old-style Keynesian macro has basically no influence. Fiscal stimulus is a non-starter in every developed country in the world with the possible exception of Japan.
But there has been a sea-change in viewpoints among monetary policy makers. Narayana Kocherlakota, a former die-hard inflation hawk is now saying things like this: “In 2013, the FOMC’s goal should be to return employment to its maximal level as rapidly as it can, while still keeping inflation close to, although possibly temporarily above, the target of 2 percent.”
Sounds to me like he’s advocating catch-up NGDP growth. Is there an economist who has been a popular advocate of NGDP level targeting? Maybe that economist would be a candidate for the mantle of Milton Friedman.
27. September 2013 at 05:04
Thanks Gordon.
Ben, I actually agreed with Bernanke. The stock market was doing well, so I didn’t see much evidence of a significant slowdown in the economy.
SG, Keep in mind that 40 years ago Friedman was widely viewed as someone who had failed to shape policy. Influence develops slowly.
Also recall that we are seeing higher minimum wages, ObamaCare, more generous welfare benefits, higher MTRs on the rich, the ARRA, etc. So I don’t think anyone can say liberals are having no impact.
27. September 2013 at 05:23
Can’t we also we tell conservatives that under NGDPLT, there is no harm to economy by govt shutdown?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-27/shutdown-would-shave-fourth-quarter-u-s-growth-as-much-as-1-4-.html
27. September 2013 at 05:35
Saturos, I agree with the claim that it was deflation, not hyperinflation, that brought the Nazis to power. Greg won’t agree, however.
27. September 2013 at 05:49
Scott, everyone recognized that Milton Friedman almost single-handedly persuaded the country to go to an all-volunteer army in the middle of wartime.
And Milton Friedman’s influence when Free to Choose exploded in 1980 was immediate — and was instantly a core part of of what swept American and the world as the Reagan (and Thatcher) Revolution.
You simply have to remember your history.
27. September 2013 at 06:36
Greg,
Krugman’s New York Times Columns and blog reach far, far more people than anything Milton Friedman ever wrote. He has over a million twitter followers, and he doesn’t even tweet!
27. September 2013 at 07:10
I disagree with most of what Tyler Cowen wrote, except–since I’ve been saying it myself for years–that Krugman is jealous of Friedman. Krugman desperately wants to be Milton Friedman, but down deep, knows he isn’t in the same league.
The only people who can be compared to Friedman are Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes and a handful of others.
Can anyone point to a blunder made by Friedman that is anywhere near the Thomas White fiasco? Or ‘Bush got favorable treatment in buying the Texas Rangers.’, and Fannie and Freddie didn’t participate in sub-prime?
Anyone know of a chapter in a Friedman book as blatantly wrong as The Economics of QWERTY in Peddling Prosperity? Even after Lee Gomes of the WSJ tracked Krugman down in 1998, and got him to admit he was wrong (sorta, he said, Turns out there wasn’t much to it.) you can still read about ‘the QWERTY problem’ in Krugman and Wells.
Friedman even helped win WWII. Army officers were pulled out of the line during the Battle of the Bulge to come back to American to listen to Friedman explain how the proximity fuse worked.
27. September 2013 at 08:28
Krugman has had what original policy idea? What novel scientific idea? What influence of any significance on anyone, beyond spreading the disgusting and reprehensible blood libel against George Bush and the Inited States that “Bush lied, and people died”.
Perhaps what we should have expected from a leftist child out of the Vietnam era.
A million twitter followed or what end? Justin Bieber has more. So does. Kim Kardashian. And they are more honest and more coherent and more respected and more listened to on public policy.
I don’t see any epmacroeconomists out there who respect Paul Krugman — I see him treated as a joke by one top guy after another.
27. September 2013 at 09:01
Patrick, I don’t see most of Tyler’s comments on Krugman as being compliments. He clearly sees Friedman as the more impressive figure.
27. September 2013 at 09:09
I was suggesting that it was the hyper-inflation which made Hitler & the Nazi cataclysm possible — without the hyperinflation you get the collapse of faith in the liberal system of markets and the rule of law, and a move to a belief in the leader prinicple and rule-less expediency.
This all happened prior to Hitler’s chance at power — and he wouldn’t have been given the power he was given without it. it wasn’t a majority vote which gave us a German dictatorial society, it was the collapse of liberal belief and culture, brought about beyond anything by the hyperinflation.
“Saturos, I agree with the claim that it was deflation, not hyperinflation, that brought the Nazis to power. Greg won’t agree, however.”
27. September 2013 at 09:10
you *don’t* get
27. September 2013 at 10:55
@Charlie
Krugman’s New York Times Columns and blog reach far, far more people than anything Milton Friedman ever wrote.
You’re kidding, right? That’s a joke? 🙂
1) When PK has a network TV series comparable to Free to Choose, still the most successful non-fiction series in the history of PBS (entirely re-broadcast a decade later), let us know.
2) When PK takes down a four-star army general like Westmoreland in public debate, on a major issue of public policy, in front of the cameras (and wins!), let us know.
3) PK’s blogs and books are notoriously slanted to his choir, those who already agree with him, all of which has near zero marginal impact on the polity.
Friedman famously took national tours to exchange with the great average masses who *didn’t* agree with him, and with his intellectual opponents. You can find these exchanges and media appearances all over Youtube — like his two full-hour shows with the rather incredulous (but equally appreciative) Phil Donohue.
Tell us when Krugman does two full hours with Bill O’Reilly (who has a lot fewer viewers than Dohohue had).
Friedman’s writings and appearanced had far more influence with public because he focused on exchanging with those who could be influenced, who did *not* already agree with him. Not with his choir. And he was always polite, respectful, and fair to those who disagreed with him, which also has a very *positive influential effect* on general audiences (see the Donohue shows) — instead of personally attacking those outside his choir as being liars, fools, and exploiters, and even speaking ill of the recently dead (as upon MF’s death PK called him “intellectually dishonest”) — behavior that has a *demonstrably negative* persuasive effect on general audience, for all the applause it gets from the choir!
4) Not least, Friedman had far more influence than PK among govt policy makers. E.g. Friedman was on that Presidential Commission to be in the position to take down Westmoreland. That’s a way you “reach people” too. How many major Presidential Commissions or other positions of similar public responsibility and influence has Krguman ever done service on?
Zip. None. He’s always lacked influence among policy makers. It’s been so since the first days of the Clinton Administration when he viciously attacked Laura Tyson when she got the job he wanted (an attack even his acolyte DeLong couldn’t accept) — thus demonstrating both why they were right in not giving him the job and guaranteeing he would never get another one. He’s openly admitted his “outside” status several times, saying it used to anger him but now he’s OK with it because he realizes he doesn’t have the “personality” to be an “inside” player.
That makes a big difference in how many people one reaches too.
Yes, you are right that PK’s fans do tweet him a lot more than Friedman’s tweet. Of course, Friedman is dead.
27. September 2013 at 11:05
@ Scott Sumner
Patrick, I don’t see most of Tyler’s comments on Krugman as being compliments. He clearly sees Friedman as the more impressive figure.
Given the way Krugman apparently personally loathes Friedman — as the arch-enemy of his beloved Keynes and, as Patrick said, for the massive public influence he had compared to all other post-WWII economists (as per how it’s seeped through so many of PK’s columns and writings mentioning MF over the years) — when I first saw this particular comparison of high praise, I couldn’t help but wonder if it wasn’t maybe Cowen poking PK with a stick a little bit, for a little fun.
Tyler’s not that insidiously evil, is he? 🙂
27. September 2013 at 13:59
Morgan,
You still don’t understand that the Tea Party is the military wing of the plutocrats.
Let’s see them eliminate income tax on the first 100k of income and then institute a steeply progressive income tax after a million or so per year. Play around with the Eisenhower rates and go from there.
27. September 2013 at 14:02
Tommy,
You said, “Yup, there’s a real benefit for Krugman in that policy makers have not taken his advice. Imagine if he had to answer for the results of 70-90% tax rates, a unionized, bureaucratized labor force, high minimum wages and government spending well over 50% of GDP.”
We had a television show about an era in American history when those policies were actually in place. You know what it was called? Wait for it….they named the show “Happy Days”
27. September 2013 at 16:26
@ Tom
“…Imagine if [Krugman] had to answer for the results of 70-90% tax rates, a unionized, bureaucratized labor force, high minimum wages and government spending well over 50% of GDP.”
We had a television show about an era in American history when those policies were actually in place. You know what it was called? Wait for it…they named the show “Happy Days”
Reality check:
1) Nobody *ever* paid those 70-90% tax rates. In fact IRS data show that back then the very richest paid *lower* effective tax rates than those with less income — say, “capital gains exclusion, massive tax preferences and tax shelters”
The richest did not start paying the highest effective tax rates until the Reagan tax cuts of 1986 dropped the top rate to 28% while eliminating the capital gain exclusion and killing off (well, at least crippling) the tax shelter industry.
Dreams of bringing back the good old days of the rich paying 70%-90% tax rates are a totally delusional fantasy of the left, those days never were.
2) Total government spending (all levels of govt) never exceeded 25% during the late 1950s, early 1960s setting of Happy Days.
3) Happy Days was fiction.
It might have been called “Jim Crow Days” — but how pleasingly escapist from reality would that have been?
27. September 2013 at 16:55
Jim Glass,
You could add that, overall, US tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher than in the 1950s.
Quite how the right-wing 1950s became remembered as a period of high social democracy is beyond me.
27. September 2013 at 17:12
Jim,
First, LOL at calling PBS “network television.” Second, that Free to Choose only airing because PBS exists is pretty ironic, no?
Third some facts.
Free to Choose sold around 1.4 million copies. Just a little more than the number of people that watch PK not use twitter.
About 2 million people read the NY Times per day. Paul Krugman is the most popular opinion writer on the most popular opinion page of the most important newspaper in the U.S. (world?).
Paul Krugman is 60 years old.
When Milton Friedman was 60 years old, the year was 1972. Milton Friedman had no nobel prize, had never advised Ronald Reagan, had not written or broadcast Free to Choose, had not been interviewed by Donahue and America still had a draft.
There is a lot of complete nonsense about MF ending the draft. He had some nice quips on a Presidential Commission that we only know about because he told us later. The commission ended in 1970 and made recommendations. Nixon ended the draft in 1973. It’s ridiculous to say that MF ended the draft. There were lots of political forces pushing in that direction, and these Presidential commissions happen all the time with no one paying them much mind.
As far as Friedman being on the “inside” and PK on the “outside.” You totally misunderstand. Neither PK nor MF would make very good bureaucrats, which is why neither has that role. The fact that PK is not a candidate for Treasury Secretary makes him more like MF not less. He has still had private meetings with the President and talks to high level staffers.
I can’t find any evidence to back up your “Free to Choose” claim. Most successful PBS documentary ever? By what metric? I have doubts…
27. September 2013 at 18:16
Oh Lord bring me back the “right wing” 1950’s when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent and the unionization rate was 4 times what it is today. When a man could support his wife and kids on one income and people had this thing called a pension.
Oh and the reason they called the show Happy Days? The era was generally…..happy.
27. September 2013 at 20:40
Well, Tom, we see that reality checks are no check on you!
27. September 2013 at 20:52
Jim, First, LOL at calling PBS “network television.”….
Well, 350+ stations plus world-wide distribution for Free to Choose, via BBC, etc, and for other shows like it. They think they are a network.
You may not be impressed, but when PK makes such a successful non-fiction TV series on even such a “semi-network” scale, do let us know.
BTW, the book of FTC was the hardcover NY Times #1 bestseller for a month, sold 400,000 copies, then sold a million more in paperback. That was back in 1980, since then it has been translated into 17 languages and is still in print world-wide.
Krugman’s “End This Depression Now” peaked at #17 with 30,000 copies sold plus 25,000 e-books. “Conscience of a Liberal” did peak for one week at #14. International translations … not so many. Of course, they had the handicap of not having a world-wide successful TV series to help sell them.
As an aside, Friedman’s earlier “Capitalism and Freedom” sold 500,000 — without a TV show — has been translated into 18 languages, and is still in print. (And is among ‘Time Magazine’s top 100 non-fiction books written in English since 1923’.) If PK ever sells a book even on this rather more modest scale, do let us know.
He had some nice quips on a Presidential Commission that we only know about because he told us later.
Or maybe other ways too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mCV29j9_nY
“Quips” 🙂
BTW, that clip was from a retrospective on Milton’s life, specifically emphasizing his extraordinary influence on the public and on public policy world-wide, very much abroad as in the US, that ran recently on … ooops, PBS! Guess you didn’t see it because you think PBS doesn’t air real TV shows.
It’s ridiculous to say that MF ended the draft.
Nobody said he ended the draft. Everybody said he dressed down a four-star general while on a Presidential Commission that played an important role in ending the draft, while playing an important role on the commission. See clip.
To have to so misrepresent what everyone else says — plus the rest of factual reality: “quips”, “we only know about because he told us later” — to defend your claims is an admission of failure. (I mean, you are only fooling yourself, not anybody else.)
I asked if you could think of any similar public service role performed by Krugman. Or such a public action of any kind venturing so far into the heart of his opposition, his anti-chorus, as PK never does.
As far as Friedman being on the “inside” and PK on the “outside.” You totally misunderstand…
That would be your “no”, eh?
And no answer to the link I provided, either, except, gee, PK “talks” to people.
About 2 million people read the NY Times per day.
Friedman was economics columnist for Newsweek when 3 million people read it. That’s a million more, wow!
But you are highly impressed by Twitter, I see, since you keep repeating it. This seems like the perspective of kid sports fans who think if they never saw a player on ESPN, he had to have sucked.
By your logic, we’d have to hold it against Keynes that nobody read him on Twitter. Krugman gets far more tweets then Keynes! (And think of all the deep economic analysis and influential insights that comes out in tweets! )
Everything else I wrote stands.
Look, if you want to build your hero up as high as you want, that’s fine.
But to have a need to knock down others in your imagination in the process is a cognitive error of an unbecoming sort. You should try rein it in.
28. September 2013 at 00:15
Wow Jim, I think we substantially agree.
First, Milton Friedman had achieved very little of his public reputation when he was PK’s current age.
Second, you refute my claim that Free to Choose sold 1.4 million copies with your claim that it sold 1.4 million copies.
We differ because you think that’s a lot, and I think it isn’t relative to the way PK has leveraged the blog and op-ed sphere.
So it comes back to this statement, “Krugman’s New York Times Columns and blog reach far, far more people than anything Milton Friedman ever wrote.”
I sadly can’t find great data, but the blog alone gets 160,000 unique U.S. visitors per month. So every 10 months he reaches more eyeballs than the most influential thing MF ever wrote just from people in the US, reading his blog. His columns in print and online get even more attention than that and of course he also has a large international audience.
Were his books as good, no, of course not, but my statement was completely accurate and some how it blew your mind apart, so think about the pot and the kettle next time you say, “But to have a need to knock down others in your imagination in the process is a cognitive error of an unbecoming sort. You should try rein it in.”
Now for the fun and ridiculous stuff you said:
Most people use “network television” to describe NBC, ABC, CBS, and now FOX and use “public television” to describe PBS, since even in the 80s PBS only had 6% of the network audience. Having a show on public television doesn’t sound as great. But I like it your way, more grandiose 🙂
“He had some nice quips on a Presidential Commission that we only know about because he told us later.
Or maybe other ways too.”
You do realize that the video linked is one of Milton Friedman telling us about his clever quip?
I also think it’s crazy and naive how much you overrate this Presidential commission. Here’s wikipedia saying what we all know about Presidential Commissions, “either to draw attention to a problem …or, on the other hand, to delay action on an issue (if the President wants to avoid taking action but still look concerned about an issue, he can convene a commission and then let it slip into obscurity)”
It’s pretty clear that since Nixon didn’t move until 1973 that he just wanted to delay action on the issue. Or at best was persuaded by something between 1970 and 1973. It certainly isn’t a testament to MF’s influence over Nixon.
“But you are highly impressed by Twitter, I see, since you keep repeating it. This seems like the perspective of kid sports fans who think if they never saw a player on ESPN, he had to have sucked.”
And you seem like an old timer that doesn’t understand this new fangled internet majiggy. The point is that this is the information age. It’s ridiculous to compare book sales and call that eyeballs. PK has leveraged his influence into a huge international audience that checks into regularly to read his thoughts. One million people sign in to watch him not TWEET!!!! One million people! It’s just a ridiculously funny measure of just how many people are aware of PK. There is no reason to follow him on twitter. I don’t. I don’t know anyone who does, and there are a million people that do. It’s an incredible commentary on the digital age. I realize now that the thought that the internet may have changed the power to influence eyeballs may have never occurred to you, so I forgive that you don’t see the significance.
And you think 1.4 million books is a lot of eyeballs…
28. September 2013 at 05:41
George Selgin asked from the audience : “Has Paul Krugman changed as many minds as did Milton Friedman?”
28. September 2013 at 08:25
Jim Glass. Hitler and Stalin both made Time magazine “Man of the Year” That wasn’t praise either.
Tom, You said;
“When a man could support his wife and kids on one income”
Actually real wages are now higher than during the 1950s.
Aldrey, Good question.
29. September 2013 at 17:30
“Actually real wages are now higher than during the 1950s.”
Interesting that you started at a time when there was still some semblence of a gold standard.
Average hourly real earnings are no higher today than they were in the 1970s:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=mTD
1. October 2013 at 12:04
[…] neoreactionary thought. For example, none of them has very nice things to say about Paul Krugman except that he’s one of the cleverest and best in the world at doing a very bad thing, but for what he imagines to be a good reason. A delusionally-noble Machiavellian super-villain […]
1. October 2013 at 16:10
[…] to recommend witty contrarian Tyler Cowan on why Paul Krugman is the contemporary Milton Friedman (via). And it makes me think even more that Noah Smith’s post on Friedman as public intellectual […]