J.D. Vance Hates Milton Friedman

Socialism is ascendant within both political parties.

At a time when the Democratic Party is being conquered from within by actual socialists—even outright communists—one might expect the Republican Party to capitalize on this strategic error and campaign against it. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump continues to espouse an economic policy that itself contains far too many concessions to socialism. Even worse, the most likely inheritor of Trump's throne is someone who is, if anything, considerably to the president's left on economics.

Vice President J.D. Vance rarely misses an opportunity to make crystal clear that his embrace of progressive economics is more ideological and deeply held than Trump's. In an interview this week with Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire, Vance took entirely unnecessary shots at the legendary economist Milton Friedman, whose laissez faire economic ideas were implemented by previous generations of conservatives to great success.

Vance begins by laughing at and defending Trump's previous comments about seizing the profits of AI companies. It seems clear that Vance is more committed to this idea than Trump is—even though it is well in keeping with proposals from democratic socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). Vance understands better than Trump that such a proposal contradicts long-held GOP economic dogma, and that's precisely what he likes about it. He likes that it's kind of socialist.

You think I'm being unfair? Vance goes on to advocate the shunning of Friedman, telling Knowles that the Republican Party of the future will enjoy spitting on his legacy. He specifically says that the party will consciously eschew Friedman-style economics in favor of centralized, government-controlled economic planning. He says this is necessary because: "It's fundamentally about the dignity of the human person. The economy is a tool to service the dignity of the human person. If a set of economic policies make it possible to raise a family, to earn a living wage, to give back to their community, to maybe go to church on Sunday, or to actually spend some leisure time building the kind of life that matters, that is the sort of thing we want to be supportive of."

JD Vance is so frustrating. Here he takes gratuitous shots at Milton Friedman as a bad model for Republican economic thinking.

With Friedman as the guiding light, Ronald Reagan won 49 states and ushered in a decade of unrivaled prosperity. pic.twitter.com/MX2MmY9Qta

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) July 2, 2026

Positing that free markets are somehow antithetical to human dignity is explicitly progressive framing. Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), and the new cadre of far-left radicals likely to join the House of Representatives next year would not have worded the statement any differently.

One can't help but wonder why Vance thinks this pivot to the left is a good idea for the party. Friedman was the lodestar of former President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, two political figures who ran on laissez faire ideas and enjoyed huge political success. Reagan won 49 states in the 1984 election, and the country experienced spectacular economic growth. By contrast, Americans seem to hate Trump's quasi-progressive economic policies: His approval rating on the economy is just 33 percent.

Instead of promising swift course-correction under a future Vance administration, he's vowing to move even further to the left. What could go wrong?

---

This Week on Free Media

I talked with Amber Duke about the Supreme Court's decision in the birthright citizenship case.

I also had a debate with NewsNation's Batya Ungar-Sargon on the same subject.

---

Worth Watching

The most recent episode of House of the Dragon was pretty great, even though I dislike many of the little changes along the way, including the weird and very forced decision to have Alicent be kind of involved in Rhaenyra's takeover. Also, I'm annoyed that they are still trying to give Rhaenyra a hero edit. Can we just let her be a mad queen already?

Comments

[MWAocdoc]

Robby, do you really think that anyone cares whether Vance hates Milton Friedman? Vance doesn't have even the basic knowledge or understanding of economics to know who Milton Friedman was or what he thought. I expect that he heard someone say something about Milton Friedman once and thought it might make him sound smart if he sneered at him a little bit. Frankly, I'd rather vacation in Bangla Desh than endure a Presidential election between J.D. and A.O.C. but no one cares what I think either.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

….but no one cares what I think either.

Probably with good reason.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Amen.

[mtrueman]

" I'd rather vacation in Bangla Desh"

I'd think twice about that. I've only met one person who's spent time traveling through Bangladesh and the feedback isn't positive. He told me the locals all viewed him as deeply suspicious, and only there to take advantage of the local women.

Milton Friedman, as a proponent of the Land Value Tax, is arguably more socialist than Trump or Vance. The tax erodes the idea of private property, elevates benefit to the community, and is a scheme for redistribution of wealth, with the attendant focus on eliminating economic inequality.

[charliehall]

So how would you pay for the law enforcement and legal system needed to protect your property rights other than taxes?

[mtrueman]

The tax in question would pay for law enforcement, infrastructure development etc and anything remaining would be distributed among the citizens. As I understand, in its purest form, other taxes - income and capital gains etc would be eliminated, thereby protecting the fruits of your labor, including improvements and buildings to the land you occupy, but the land itself would be commonly owned, with the government collecting rent (taxes) according to the land's potential productive capacity. ie Occupants of land downtown would be taxed at a higher rate than land in the middle of the sticks. Friedman called this kind of tax 'the least bad.'

It doesn't punish economic activity, it discourages speculation and sprawl, and has the benefit of being transparent as land cannot be taken and hidden in an overseas bank account.

It can also be applied to anything god given as opposed to manufactured like air, water, oil, mineral deposits, sunlight, wind, tides, the electromagnetic spectrum etc.

[Agammamon]

You know Soave, a lot of this 'confusion' you seem to have would be cleared up if you realized that none of the people, Left or Right, are talking about 'socialism' - even though they are using that word.

They mean 'fascism'. Where the state can direct private industry for state goals as the state sees fit.

You all think that because you're young and wiser than everyone else you understand the 'nuances' more - but you don't. The old guys were more nuanced than you were.

And let's not forget the Left and the Right of the past were very much in support of fascism - as long as you don't call it fascism.

So we pretend Singapore and South Korea aren't fascist. We still pretend China is communist - even they do - when its fascist. *Most of the world* is some sort of fascist economic system.

[creech]

Aga gets it. Each party is varying shades of fascist economic policy.

[DesigNate]

For over 100 years now.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Fascists 100 years ago were socialists. They still are.

[SRG2]

Nah - fascists generally didn't seize and retain the means of production. they trended to hand them over to private individuals more aligned with their policies.

But wherther Vance is more fascist or more socialiust doesn't really matter. He's an ignorant anti-capitalist careerist POS.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

If the only difference is control vs ownership, then there is no difference, and fascists are socialists.

[mtrueman]

There is a difference. Private enterprise is expected to abide by a country's laws and regulations and failing to do so will land them in hot water. In that way all businesses are under the control of the state. As far as day to day management of businesses in Fascist Germany, they were able to carry on as before, though they had to be careful of the new regime, so for example, a film studio wouldn't make a film critical of Hitler, or celebrate the contributions to society of Germany's Jews, for example.

If ownership remains in private hands, the owners take a substantial cut in the profits for themselves. It's not a small thing. Germany's most powerful politicians in 1933 were von Hindenberg and von Papen, arch conservatives who were faced with election results showing a flagging Nazi party and a growing Leftist opposition. They chose to elevate Hitler on the assumption that he was friendlier to capital and conservatism, and they were right. Hitler liquidated social outcasts, the Left and the Jews, but left the aristocrats, military and the capitalists untouched.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Yeah, you communists really hate him, we get it, comrade.

[car-keynes]

I get that.

It might be fair -- for him -- to say that America has been going more in an Alexander Hamilton direction than a Milton Friedman one.

That America has always trended in a more Hamiltonian direction ought make good sense, Hamilton and George Mason penned the works of the Federalist Papers as federalist and anti-federalist proponents for sake of debate. The depth of that for the average person reads that the constitution looks like it looks today -- to the extent commuted as it stand -- because of men like Alexander Hamilton not Milton Friedman.

Americans really could add a Friedman amendment at this point.

I turned away from my former comment down there and watched the video of Vance moving perspective of the thing around.

[charliehall]

The actual socialists who were rounded up and murdered in Italy, Germany, Spain, Austria, Poland, France, and Croatia would not agree.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Oh please Retard, there really wasn’t much tangible difference in how they were going to govern. YIu just aren’t smart enough to admit the truth.

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

Wake up dude.

“We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear. We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.”

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

“the housing market is not necessary”

https://housing.dsausa.org/

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

“We prioritize the improvement, expansion, and sustainable funding of universal public services. We advocate for campaigns that build relationships with labor, electeds, and a working-class base, and are impactful enough to begin to tackle global nature of capitalism-driven climate change.”

https://ecosocialists.dsausa.org/

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

Definitely not real socialism though, because it’s never been tried!

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Pretend socialism is just as horrible.

[mtrueman]

"*Most of the world* is some sort of fascist economic system."

Are there any countries that aren't fascist? Can you name them? Maybe North Korea? The Vatican? You're thinking of a country where powerful private interests aren't an integral part of the state?

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Huh. Reagan is cool again.

[mad.casual]

And Hamilton, despite being a massive hit on Broadway that celebrates a noble Founding Father and the people who supported him, is now a slur.

[Sir Chips Alot]

tell me again about the size of the national debt and the government under Reagan.....

[mad.casual]

"JD Vance is wrong and doesn't understand Friedman as well as Trump. It's insulting that he would compare Friedman to Hamilton. He's way more like Reagan." is about the take I would expect from Reason.

[Rick James]

Who wins if we agree to disagree on which version of socialism we're going to strategically and reluctantly support?

[Clipton]

This is an example of the unedited dumpster fire Reason has become. Soave claims that Vance is "shunning" and "spitting on" Friedman but when I watch the footage he doesn't say anything remotely matching that description. Vance only suggests, in a polite and measured way, that Friedman's laissez faire policies are outdated now because of the diminution of Christian influence in today's society. How else is he supposed to express that view? This rag has completely lost its editorial objectivity.

[Normal Guy]

I know this argument. I’m not religious but it’s always sounded reasonable to me.

Being a Christian is like having a little tyrant in your mind. That power of self-regulation might be necessary in unregulated environments.

[car-keynes]

Don't mistake being for your head swimming in all the "man upstairs" references. There is no better way out than through your mind doing the work, though some of us have to leave it to the guiding parent or spirited healer who followed the path lain out by the stationary literate guide pushing the unlikely one-step course.

[charliehall]

"Friedman's laissez faire policies are outdated now because of the diminution of Christian influence in today's society. How else is he supposed to express that view?"

Not at all. It shows Vance's ignorance as well as his anti-Semitism.

[Clipton]

Yeah, and the Blacks and the Gays too.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That's a laugh. You can't maintain personal dignity when it is subordinate to government.

Fucking statists. what can't they ruin.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Boaf sidez!

[Spiritus Mundi]

Alt headline:

J.D. Vance is Wrong About Milton Friedman

[Thoritsu]

Cultivating the middle, presumably. Fine to say. Bad to try to implement, but consistent with seizing the power you have in government, which EVERY person in government delights in. EVERY ONE!
Oh, and dick face Robby ... What about the complete rejection of Milton Friedman of EVERY SINGLE democratic candidate? Did you ever write about this, dick face?

[SRG2]

Centralised economies don't work. Trump doesn't understand that because he ran a centralised business and he doesn't understand the difference between a business and an economy, and Vance doesn't understand that because it's convenient not to.

[James K. Polk]

This comment is the most accurate model of Trump and Vance, and will be most predictive. At some point, hopefully well before the 2028 presidential election but maybe not, Trump's influence will drop precipitously, and Vance's tune will change. To what, I'm not sure.

[charliehall]

They work for a while. They are essential in wartime.

[BigFish92672]

" two political figures who ran on laissez faire ideas and enjoyed huge political success. "
Reagan broke records with the spending under his watch. His "laissez faire idea" was to leave his Veto Pen in the desk.

There is good reason to hate Friedman. He is literally the Father Of Income Tax Withholding. Income Tax Withholding helped liberals destroy America much faster than we would have been destroyed otherwise. Cloward-Piven now!!!

[James K. Polk]

Cloward-Piven now!!!

MEngA -- Make America England Again?

no.

[kevrob]

Sympathy for statist economics on the part of pseudo-intellectuloid Catholics, especially converts? I smell Distributism. See Belloc, Chesterton & the roots of Social Credit.

[minus the clever name]

You are what you attack. Distributism has no official standing int he Catholic Church. But things like ESOPs are an excellent implementation of that and require no ideological allegiance. Friedman disliked ESOPs but he was wrong.

My advice: Do something about your addiction to abstracts...Statist, pseudo-intellectual, Catholics, Distributism , Social Credit.

[mad.casual]

Also, SSDD, there are a wide array of 'distributist' ideologies, not all of which inherently conflict with libertarianism.

Friedman himself advocated for a negative income tax. There's a solid case for a politician believing The Church (or a, or several) *should* solicit donations and redistribute wealth and that The State should not interfere as long as donation is voluntary and the result isn't Palestinian protestors burning buildings on Columbia's campus.

Neither/None of which JD Vance may be advancing but, as you say, abstracts.

[charliehall]

Friedman also supported mandstory universal health insurance, as did Hayek. Their ideas would have worked much better than Obamacare, but the MAGA program is to blow up the entire healthcare system.

[charliehall]

"The Church (or a, or several) *should* solicit donations and redistribute wealth"

George Washington did that as a Church Warden in Virginia. Except that the donations were not voluntary.

[minus the clever name]

only 18% of schools require their students to take even a single course in U.S. history or government, and only 3% require a course in economics.

You just aren't making sense to me. What does Vance have to do with it???

[TD]

It's a tough task to find a politician of any pursuasion who doesn't think that the world would be so much better if only they could micromanage it to the nth degree.

[Sequel]

The Republican Party is in reality the Oligarchy Party -- which advocates limiting individual liberty in support of economic growth. They still have a libertarian caucus that militates for balance between property rights and civil rights, but nevertheless their right wing continues to push in the direction of fascism.

The Democratic Party is in reality the collapsing remains of a Progressive Party that was invaded by refugees from the pre-oligarchic Republican Party, whose influence spawned an ideological flight to socialism.

[mad.casual]

The Democratic Party is in reality the collapsing remains of a Progressive Party that was invaded by refugees from the pre-oligarchic Republican Party, whose influence spawned an ideological flight to socialism.

The degree to which this is not even wrong, on a superficial level, is astounding.

[Marshal]

one might expect the Republican Party to capitalize on this strategic error and campaign against it. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump continues to espouse an economic policy that itself contains far too many concessions to socialism.

While we're on the subject of strategic errors perhaps Reasoners should spend some time reflecting on their own. Financially responsible conservatives spent a decade trying to work with libertarians only for Reason writers and other public libertarians to denigrate them at every turn. As a result everyone involved concluded libertarians are not worth seeking support from and moved to coopt the left's practice of buying votes.

So you achieved economic ruin but you get to blame it on those you hate. Is it worth it?

[5Arete22]

Vance is flexble. His distaste for free markets may change as did his distaste for Trump:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240807122432/https://www.fox5dc.com/news/jd-vance-once-coined-trump-americas-hitler-now-he-will-serve-his-second-command

"I’m a Never Trump guy," Vance said in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2016. "I never liked him."

The Ohio native harshly denounced Trump on Twitter during his 2016 campaign, calling him a "moral disaster" and "just another opioid" for Middle America.

Vance also liked tweets that said Trump committed "serial sexual assault," called him "one of the USA’s most hated, villainous, duchy celebs," and harshly criticized Trump’s response to the 2017 White nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

[Fred12345]

Wow, I'm totally shocked by Vance. I don't always agree with Robby but he has a good point here. Hopefully Vance learns something about big government by leading the fraud task force.

[charliehall]

Fraud is not a bug but a feature for the MAGA Cult. The purpose of political power is to enrich yourself and your cronies.

[Big Ed's Landing]

J. D. Vance is certainly not a beacon of rational thought on any subject, but particularly when it comes to economics. His musings on the subject remind me of what I was taught about communism as a school child...heavily managed economy, lots of government intervention and picking of winners, etc.

[minus the clever name]

He's VP and you are, what ?

[mtrueman]

Not VP?

[Jim Logajan]

No one posting here is VP.
What can be concluded by this observation?

[minus the clever name]

That an anonymous unknown arguing against the VP needs either credentials or the self-evidence of what he says. This has neither. It's sticking a picture of your bare ass on a billboard and written underneath it : Hey VP you are wrong

Worse than worthless

[minus the clever name]

Well you sure lost to Batya and she's a MAGA lefty, so you lost doubly.

[minus the clever name]

There is a fallacy on here that probably doesn't have a name. So someone says Vance hates Friedman and they reflexively think that implies some positive trait. I often use the Prohibition example to show students or whoever how mindless that is.

I might support Prohibition because I see it as increasing sales from my still out back.

[Brett Bellmore]

I kept waiting for actual quotes where Vance said something about Friedman. Why weren't there any?

Starting at about 28 minutes.

It's not THAT hostile towards Friedman. What he's saying is that pure laissez faire capitalism rests on a moral underpinning that was present when Friedman was popular, but which needs to be rebuilt today.

But I think he IS underestimating the moral hazard threat of departures from laissez faire capitalism. There's really no reason to think that the government has the self-control and discipline needed to intervene in the economy successfully without slipping into crony capitalism.

[5Arete22]

As do left socialists, Vance probably thinks that government control of the economy will be fine so long as the Right People (i.e., people like him) are in charge. Hayek's _Road_to_Serfdom_ describes why the worst get on top under such circumstances.

[car-keynes]

Basically what I interpret him saying:

"It doesn't really matter if your values result in prosperity. If we are being paid to vote to destroy the economy, then we'll destroy those statues, release felon pariahs early, and eschew this Friedman kook. Besides, it kind of looks cool to have flames coming out of your nostrils whenever someone thinks of your unstoppables."