"

 Milton Friedman etc. 

I really don't know what I've done or said to produce the attitude you're taking. You can disagree with what I say, although I personally fail to see how any argument can in the end prevent Klein's inclusion in the Friedman article, and I can be mistaken, as I was in my first reading of the Norberg link, but I don't see how you can take things much beyond that. Nothing in my behaviour has necessitated the kind of personal, unprovoked insults with which you've decided to base this discourse. You do know, I'm sure, that personal attacks are entirely against wikipedia policy, and their especially bad form when done repetively and without just cause. You seem to take things fair to literally, or at least bizarrely you have decided to take that approach. I don't mean literally that people regard Friedman as a god, and having to explain that feels rather odd but I've decided to assume good faith as opposed to the more likely probability that you decided just to be awkward and provocative in your discourse. It is simply that a large number of economists and right-wingers regard Friedman as something similiar to god, infallible and above normal human standards. If its not Friedman, than its classical economics as a whole, which is apparently beyond any external critique. That, I believe, explains much of the absense of any proper criticism of Friedman on what in other respects is a fairly extensive article.

Regarding Klein, you simply don't have a point here, its as basic as that. It it not the place of Wikipedia to judge what is ""right"" in any particular set of affairs, but to record those opinions which are notable. Klein is a best-selling and well-regarded writer with a reputation for fairly good research, her book was generally fairly widely praised and her criticism of Friedman is one of the most well-known in the contemporary world. It also covers far, far more than Chile. That cannot be dismissed because just because Friedman's supports or, for example, a paper by an institute that is itself the target of criticism from her book. As such, the rights and wrongs of Norberg's critique are fairly irrelevent. Although it could of course be included as a counter to Klein's criticism within the Friedman article, there is no case for using it to justify the actual exclusion of Klein's views. Now I know that a lot of Friedmanite/Friedmanesque etc. economists like to believe that there ""laws"" of economics are a watertight and natural science and as such they are immune to any criticism that isn't likewise ""scientificic"", and that presumably hold the same assumptions, but most people disagree.

Just to keep you happy, I'll discuss it briefly here. It has some very good points; for example Norberg convincingly shows there was a free-market trend towards the end of the century that goes beyond Klein's explanations (although the actual area of discussionof Klein's book were the far rarer, radical, fundamentalist reforms of the period, but more on that in a minute), he convincingly argues against Klein's account of events in Argentina and (mea culpa) China, his ridicule of Klein's ""Shock!Shock!Shock!"" metaphor which I myself found unconvincing (as opposed to most her narrative and arguments) is fairly accurate and he makes a strong defence, in many cases, of Friedman. But his 20-page article is itselfcontains so many of of its semi-accuracies, disingenuous argument and near-falsehoods as to make any suggestion that it ""proves"" Klein wrong, or even significantly weakens much of her basic arguments, completely ludicrous. I'll just list in no propersome of them since I don't have the time to do anything much else. 
He says she portrays the Chicago School as a place that brainwashed its students, as opposed to it actually being famously open to discussion, whereas actually she gives quite a significant account of its openness to disussion. 
This one's just basic commone sense; he says Klein's Friedman crisis quote isn't from any important paper but a preface to Capitalism and Freedom; the preface to the guysmost important book, he defining manifesto, isn't significant? Tell that to Friedrich Engels. 
He says that Friedman gave the same advice to the Soviet Union, China and Yugoslavia, ""yet nobody would claim he was a communist"", well Klein mentioned this herself, not claiming he was a communist, but using it as an additional example of his somewhat undemocratic outlook.
His suggestion that the military was in control of the economy at the beginnning and the Chicago Boys didn't have control  until later on is simply false. While Pinochet accelerating his reforms as things went along, while the military held ministerial positions and while some statist tendencies naturally held on some level as they always will; Norberg is really here just selecting any facts he can that might appear disprove Klein's accoun