Milton Friedman etc   I really dont know what Ive done or said to produce the attitude youre taking You can disagree with what I say although I personally fail to see how any argument can in the end prevent Kleins inclusion in the Friedman article and I can be mistaken as I was in my first reading of the Norberg link but I dont see how you can take things much beyond that Nothing in my behaviour has necessitated the kind of personal unprovoked insults with which youve decided to base this discourse You do know Im 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 dont mean literally that people regard Friedman as a god and having to explain that feels rather odd but Ive 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 rightwingers 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 dont 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 bestselling and wellregarded 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 wellknown in the contemporary world It also covers far far more than Chile That cannot be dismissed because just because Friedmans 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 Norbergs critique are fairly irrelevent Although it could of course be included as a counter to Kleins criticism within the Friedman article there is no case for using it to justify the actual exclusion of Kleins views Now I know that a lot of FriedmaniteFriedmanesque 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 isnt likewise scientificic and that presumably hold the same assumptions but most people disagree  Just to keep you happy Ill discuss it briefly here It has some very good points for example Norberg convincingly shows there was a freemarket trend towards the end of the century that goes beyond Kleins explanations although the actual area of discussionof Kleins book were the far rarer radical fundamentalist reforms of the period but more on that in a minute he convincingly argues against Kleins account of events in Argentina and mea culpa China his ridicule of Kleins ShockShockShock 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 page article is itselfcontains so many of of its semiaccuracies disingenuous argument and nearfalsehoods as to make any suggestion that it proves Klein wrong or even significantly weakens much of her basic arguments completely ludicrous Ill just list in no propersome of them since I dont 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 ones just basic commone sense he says Kleins Friedman crisis quote isnt from any important paper but a preface to Capitalism and Freedom the preface to the guysmost important book he defining manifesto isnt 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 didnt 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 Kleins accoun