New at Reason

December 15, 2006

Brian Doherty corrects the record on Milton Friedman and Augusto Pinochet.

Comments

|12.15.06 @ 3:46PM|#

Didn't Mr. Friedman do this himself a few years back?

|12.15.06 @ 4:10PM|#

Say, if your gonna title it "the economist and the dictator" perhaps you should put up a picture of an economist and a dictator.

oh wait, you did.

|12.15.06 @ 4:38PM|#

"Milton," you're a moron.

|12.15.06 @ 4:54PM|#

It's a goo point to make that Pinochet and Friedman are not two sides of the same coin, but then the article goes on to make an interesting statement, the kind of statement that gives the left reason to believe that they are:

"Pinochet and Friedman have been assumed by many to be two sides of some evil right-wing coin in which torture, despotism, and unrestricted free markets are all inextricably linked.

Did Milt really believe in unristricted freemarkets?

Unrestricted? Completely? He certainly believed in free markets, and Pinochet certainly believed in unrestricted freemarkets, but are they the same thing?

The US for instance once had some "unrestricted" freemarkets, it was called a slave market. Did Milt really believe in that? No, he actually did believe in some restrictions, the same kind that might apply in civil law, the same kind that most (L)libertarians oppose being applied to modern gov/corp hybrids.

No, I've read a great deal of Milt, and the thought that he really believed in "markets in everything" or a freemarket unristricted by the freedoms enjoyed by those in the market place is a republican and a (L)libertarian delusion.

And one of the main pieces of evidence that the left uses, quite rightly, against anyone arguing in favor of completely unrestricted markets vs. Freemarkets. There is a difference. In one, human beings are for sale, in the other they are productive inhabitants.

This article would probably just make some on the left say....well? By confusing lack of restriction within certain classes only, as meaning freedom for all.

|12.15.06 @ 5:55PM|#

I wish that it was only the misspellings that made that last post incomprehensible.

|12.15.06 @ 6:32PM|#

Are you calling me a phony? Are you saying I, Milton D. Friedman, world reknowned economist, philosopher and lover, is not really emailing this blog from heaven?

How dare you sir. I just loosened the top on Karl Marx's salt shaker, boy he's gonna be sour.

|12.15.06 @ 6:38PM|#

thanks for a great article and for slamming the authoritarians at National Review. Did you see the op-ed by Jonah G that Iraq needs a Pinochet? Horrible.

Gene Berkman|12.15.06 @ 6:43PM|#

Good article, Brian, on an important issue.

Friedman did criticize the Pinochet regime for its restrictions on freedom. Friedman made these criticisms in speeches in Chile as well as the USA.

His detractors often overlooked worse restrictions on freedom in Cuba.

|12.15.06 @ 7:41PM|#

What a wonderfully balanced appraisal. But the right shares with the left more than a tendency to excuse crimes. The libertarian right embraces a quasi-religious economic dogmatism that rivals that of Marxism. Too much certainty is a dangerous thing.

Ray G|12.15.06 @ 8:02PM|#

The did some piece on NPR today (it's the only non-music station that I can get at work) with two guys whose names I missed.

But one guy was virulently Left, and the other guy seemed rather reasonable, and this point was brought up though not that this in-depth.

The seemingly reasonable guy said Pinochet was a murderer, and human rights abuser, but he did manage to lay a foundation for a sound economy and strong govt to come after him.

The Leftist slammed into him for defending Pinochet which he really wasn't doing. And the reasonable guy made the obvious point (to me anyway) that Castro has killed more of his own people and yet he is celebrated AND he has created no basis for a sound economy which would of course equal future freedoms.

Blah blah blah. Ideologues both Left and Right have an unbelievable ability to blind themselves in order to see what they want to see.

National Review has Pinochet, the mainstream media has Castro, and so on and so on. . .

|12.15.06 @ 8:22PM|#

Goldberg's article in the NR makes exactly the same points as Doherty's...save that it isn't about Friedman. Goldberg's additional point is aimed at war skeptics, who essentially contend that Iraq was better off under the tyrant Saddam, rather than the current government they elected themselves. Goldberg contends that Saddam was more like Castro than Pinochet...and Pinochet was better than either Castro or Saddam.

Who disagrees?

uncle sam|12.15.06 @ 8:26PM|#

I've never heard of "unrestricted" markets. If you have slaves, then their participation in the market must be restricted.
If you ask me what "unrestricted" market means, I would suppose that it meant a market with unrestricted access to all people, hence it would not be possible to have an "unrestricted" market and human slaves.
What you would have, if there were slaves, is slavery.

|12.15.06 @ 8:27PM|#

I doubt that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are mourning their dead think Iraq is much improved since Saddam was deposed. Was Pinchet better than Castro? Not from the point of view of his many victims.

|12.15.06 @ 8:55PM|#

"Was Pinchet better than Castro?"

If you had to decide between moving to Chile or Cuba tomorrow, which would you choose?

|12.15.06 @ 9:06PM|#

Good article, Brian. I hadn't been aware that Friedman had also advised governments in communist countries. On another thread I had stated confidently that if Castro had had a change of heart and had asked Friedman to advise him on economic matters I'm sure Friedman would have obliged. This proves my point that Friedman was merely interested in helping out the cause of economic freedom anywhere where the opportunity arose

So, Friedman gets lumped in with the crimes of Pinochet, while millions of left-oriented twenty-somethings and older adults who should know better happily don "Che" t-shirts - the man who killed thousands of critics of Castro with his own hands. Makes a lot of bloody sense.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.15.06 @ 9:42PM|#

Pinochet certainly believed in unrestricted freemarkets

Pinochet was only a free-marketer in the sense that China is a free-marketer.

|12.16.06 @ 5:50AM|#

Andrew

"Iraq was better off under the tyrant Saddam, rather than the current government they elected themselves. Goldberg contends that Saddam was more like Castro than Pinochet...and Pinochet was better than either Castro or Saddam."

Chile suggests the opposite, surely? A quick Google shows Chileans are better off under the government they elected themselves than the tyrant Pinochet.

Unlike AFAIK Iraq or Cuba, Chile was already a functioning constitutional democracy before its Strong Man coup. There were limited government means to deal with the political crisis caused by Chile's reportedly very unpopular head of state, and unpopularity makes it easier to get rid of bad government via democracy (the opposite is implied by some Pinochet defenders).

Instead, Pinochet chose to impose free wheeling monopolistic autocracy. Which makes the point about his tactics being necessary, given their context, a bit moot.

Basically he was a radical in a bad way and not a conservative in a good way.

|12.16.06 @ 10:00AM|#

This is an excellent article. There's another one, by John Londregan, at the Weekly Standard.* Friedman was a great economist, as opposed to John Kenneth Galbraith, who was only a publicist, but Friedman had a hunger for the public eye that led him to make far too many glib and/or disingenuous statements. But I'm particularly struck by the line he fed Pinochet, that he should "provide for the relief of any cases of real hardship and severe distress among the poorest classes."

As an example of shameless ass-covering, this takes the cake. Were there any "cases of real hardship" in Chile in 1975? Only a couple of million, I'm sure. Addressing "cases of real hardship and severe distress among the poorest classes" could have justified the WPA ten times over.

*http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/090xsnop.asp
(Sorry, but if there's a cool way to do links, I don't know how to do it.)

|12.16.06 @ 10:30AM|#

It's surprising to see a reasonable discussion on Hit and Run instead of the usual sloganeering pap. What happened to the loonies?

|12.16.06 @ 12:53PM|#

In light of the fact that Friedman was only marginally successful in "imposing" his preferred mutation of capitalism/freedomism on the government of America, I find it difficult, to say the least, to lay any significant responsibility for Pinochet's thuggery at Friedman's feet.

|12.16.06 @ 1:18PM|#

P Brooks

No kidding, let's face it. Nixon ignored Friedman. And Friedman actually was officially an adviser to Nixon.

Look the way I see it if people want to criticize Friedman for the way he dealt with Pinochet that is fine. But to keep making the statement that Milton Friedman was "an advser" to Pinochet (as a number of commentaters did) represents sloppy use of the the language.

|12.16.06 @ 1:19PM|#

...represents sloppy use of the the language verging on lying.

|12.16.06 @ 1:59PM|#

Isaac Bartram-

"Nixon ignored Friedman."

I think it's safe to assume that wage and price controls did not come out of Friedman's toolbox.

|12.16.06 @ 2:29PM|#

"Chile was already a functioning constitutional democracy before its Strong Man coup"

Kit

The "functioning" part is controversial. I am of two minds. I believe the benefits of democratic governance in iraq today are moot, given the disintegration of society into chaos...and that I take it is the contention of many war sceptics. But if so, then it is just as honarable to argue the same case RE Chile under Allende.

I am not sure the case is convincing. I might prefer Allende's "chaos" to Pinochet's Order, even at the price of Allende's welfarism vs. Pinochet's market-reform...but the question is at least open to examination. I don't believe Goldberg, or others, who argue the contrary are obviously wrong.

|12.16.06 @ 2:52PM|#

In a fair world, the inhabitants of Chile would never have suffered under Pinochet or Allende. Instead, Pinochet and Allende would have been thrown in a pit together without food or water to let nature take its course.

|12.17.06 @ 12:44AM|#

"The US for instance once had some 'unrestricted' freemarkets, it was called a slave market."

How many times must this pernicious meme be refuted before it finally dies?

Just because people exchange money for something doesn't make it a *free* market transaction. Otherwise, bribing a Congressman to raise tariffs would be an exercise in free enterprise.

Paying someone to abridge a third person's liberty without his consent is not a *free* market transaction. Notice the word "free"? As in the opposite of slave?

John Locke wrote about the foundation of rights being the right of *self*-ownership (as opposed to, you know, being owned by others). This self-ownership right was the foundation, in his theory, of the right to private property (mix your labor with unappropriated property, or exchange your labor for property, etc).

This slave-market = free market thing is beyond straw man.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.17.06 @ 2:02AM|#

"While necessary for freedom, capitalism alone is not sufficient to guarantee freedom. It must be accompanied by a set of values and by political institutions favorable to freedom"-Milton Friedman

|12.17.06 @ 3:17AM|#

The Chinese are busy proving that freedom is not necessary for capitalism. But freedom is never absolute, is it? We have a highly developed capitalist economy with an incarceration rate that rivals China's, thanks mostly to draconian drug laws. A wealthy Chinese--thanks to capitalism there are lots of them--is probably freer in many respects than a poor American, especially one who likes to smoke dope.

|12.17.06 @ 6:13PM|#

Mad Max

Ever hear of a buyer's market? When the economy goes bad, as it does cyclically, working people have the "free" choice of accepting low wages or going hungry. Freedom and slavery are relative terms.

|12.17.06 @ 6:43PM|#

When the economy goes bad, as it does cyclically, businesses have to liquidate inventory at a loss to avoid bankruptcy. Often they are unsuccessful.

What people have to do during hard times has nothing to do with slavery.

|12.17.06 @ 7:37PM|#

Well, of course, economic hard times don't equal slavery, but they're no picnic either. The trouble with you fanatics is that you have no sense of continuum. Everything either conforms to the dogma or it doesn't. And you deride religious fundamentalists. Amazing.

|12.17.06 @ 9:12PM|#

Leon wins the Overgeneralization Award.

|12.17.06 @ 11:15PM|#

What Leon is trying to say, is that you all need to learn to be more practical.

|12.17.06 @ 11:54PM|#

Pragmatic, Jim, pragmatic. It has saved capitalism more than once. These born-agains will never get it.

|12.18.06 @ 12:05AM|#

moctomouse

I would think that somebody who believes the American model of capitalism is the panacea for all the world's woes deserves the Overgeneralization Award more than I do. Any nominees?

|12.18.06 @ 3:33AM|#

Leon,
After your follow-up remarks I'm going to have to go ahead and nominate you for a second year in a row. "born agains" or "somebody that believes the American model of capitalism is the panacea for all the world's woes" are fine pieces of evidence for overgeneralization based on limited or even inaccurate data (I doubt many of us with support that second statement, especially as stated). Keep up the thought-free sweeping statements and maybe we can support your nomination for a third term.

|12.18.06 @ 3:39AM|#

edit "with" to "would"


Also, Leon, you might find it more interesting one day to argue specific points of disagreement with real libertarians than to argue over generalized preconceptions of libertarianism with cartoon figures in your head. And if you read enough of this blog you'll see that libertarians disagree with each other on numerous issues.

|12.18.06 @ 12:07PM|#

Moctopouse

I've read this blog for months, and I've noticed that anyone who steps beyond the carefully defined parameters of a simplistic libertarian world view is immediately denounced as a troll. You disagree with each other the way Muslim clerics quibble over interpreations of Koranic verses.

|12.20.06 @ 2:00PM|#

Leon,
I think that reflects your reading skills and calcified prejudices - not so much the commenters here. I've had arguments with people over things here such as animal rights - where the line should be drawn there and have taken a decidedly unorthodox position. While one or two responses were a bit heated no one referred to me as a troll. I also think there are interesting arguments to made concerning the line drawn between individual rights and communal concerns in certain areas concerning th environment, etc. I've seen others take unorthodox stands as well. But these are not met with the 'troll' label. I've only seen one regular commenter consistently labeled as a troll: a guy who consistently takes the most reactionary nanny state position on any topic that comes up - talk about a simplistic world view. One other regular self-identifies as a liberal. He might have been called a troll by a few people but I certainly wouldn't label him that way as I find he is reflective, intelligent, has interesting opinions, and seems genuinely interested in debate. Then there's people like Mainstream Man who consistently bring another interesting perspective to the table.

But oh well, I guess it's just much easier to overgeneralize ("that's why the good lord made your eyes"?) then you to do the work to actually read carefully and sort out what people actually think.