Talk:Milton Friedman/Archive 1

message: Could the petty little person who keeps vandalizing the section about the cause of Friedman's death to read "not having enough heart" instead of "heart disease" perhaps stop doing it?  The man is dead, how about giving him a break out of respect for his family if nothing else.  We're not vandalizing the entry for Karl Marx.  Why don't you leave Friedman alone?
Graball 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: There's a discrepancy in the dates of birth.  The article lists his birthdate as being in 1912, but describes him as the last of four children, while his sisters were born in the 1920s. Unless there's an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine, something is amiss. The U of Chicago lists his date of birth as 1912 - could the date of the sisters be incorrect? Thaddeus Ryan 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut the bad faith crap.  http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/releases/4667846.html  (I agree with Losh14 that someone might want to check the sisters date of birth...) -- Mgunn 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday 

message: I removed this paragraph:
:He however also visited Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in March - April of 1976, two months before the Soweto uprising which was viciously suppressed by the National Party government.  On 2nd May 1976 he wrote an article for the Sunday Times in South Africa in which he supported the racist minority government of Ian Smith.  Whilst in South Africa he met the State President, Dr N. Diederichs and many of Apartheid's cabinet ministers.  Friedman missed the opportunity to criticise the disenfranchisement of the majority of the people of South Africa and Zimbabwe and suggest a simple non-racist one person one vote system enjoyed by the citizens of the West.  Instead he chose to suggest amending the elementary schooling system to get whites to pay the same amount that significantly poorer black pupils were forced to pay. 
I don't know the details of Friedman's visit to South Africa.  That he would have written an article in support of Ian Smith's government seems to me very unlikely.  (Can anyone provide the actual text of the article?)  That he would have met with members of the government of South Africa seems to me unremarkable.  The implication that Friedman is or was a racist is completely unsubstantiated.  -- Eb.hoop 11:00, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: The 'bio' section reads as follows:
"Born in Jamaica to a working-class family of African AmericanHungarian immigrants from Italy (Berehove, today Ukraine), Friedman was educated at Rutgers University (B.A., 1932) and at the University of Chicago (M.A., 1933). After working for the a brothel and for Columbia University..."
this sounds somewhat...confused. Paul 07:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the? 

message: I put the Libertarianism template on this page because I thought that anyone interested in Friedman would be interested in a quick way of finding information on:
#people who support his policies
#similar theorists and authors
#libertarian-style economics
These are all provided by the libertarianism template.  I don't think anyone will disagree that he's one of the most influential libertarian thinkers of the 20th century (vouchers, monetary policy, etc.) and that his positions on just about everything can be described accurately as "libertarian."
User:ExplorerCDT says that "he isn't just a libertarian" and so he should not have the template.  I decided to put it to a vote:
* Friedman wasn't only a libertarian, and while the article states that he held "various" libertarian positions, it does not say he is simply or exclusively a libertarian.  He is also a monetarist, a die-hard capitalist, among other things...do we require more templates to link him in with other isms and ists?  I don't feel it is appropriate, given the circumstances.  The template, in my opinion, does not deserve a position of prominence in that it completely takes up the entire left column (resulting in the moving of his picture) and is rather unsightly.  If you want to include a template, design a better one, and put it at the bottom of the article...like other templates.  Given he wasn't exclusively libertarian, this I would consider appropriate.  It's silly to vote on this bullshit. —ExplorerCDT 23:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian template 

message: Does anyone have information on the health of 92-year-old Friedman? Perhaps the article could include some information pertaining to the aging economist's health.  
: He's almost 94 now and gave a Weekend Edition WSJ interview a few months ago with his wife joining in with spirit. Is it fair that some people just don't seem to age? Thomasmeeks 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've recently exchanged a few e-mails with him and his son, David, because of a project I'm working on, and he's actually in pretty good health right now. He doesn't travel much, just because it's tiring, but he's in pretty good shape for his years and will be with us quite a bit longer. The WSJ interview with Milton and Rose Friedman was about 3 weeks ago. —ExplorerCDT 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health of Milton Friedman 

message: I don't have any problem with classifying Friedman as a libertarian - he describes himself that way - but the template needs to be redesigned. It's way too big and obtrusive, and should be at the bottom of the article. The way it is now, it resembles annoying advertising. Mirror Vax 01:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Template 

message: It seems to me that there are some references lacking from this page. The first paragraph has a quote in it, but no reference.
Vitamin D 03:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References lacking 

message: Here's a picture of Friedman on the cover of October Reason Magazine if anyone wants to copy it to the article.   Magazine covers are "fair use." RJII 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: We have to make a fucking decision on how this "Nobel" crap is dealt with in the article.  Because you people are pissing me off and we're going to continue in a reverting war unless this is resolved NOW. I propose the following verbiage for the Lead Paragraph:
: In 1976, he was awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (known informally as the "Nobel Prize in Economics") for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.
To be rendered in wikicode as:
: In 1976, he was awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (known informally as the "Nobel Prize in Economics") for his achievements...
Considerations:
* We should, for the sake of accuracy, put forth the official and correct names first for prizes before saying "commonly known as". To do otherwise perpetuates an inaccuracy.
* The proposal, per ExplorerCDT, passes the litmus test suggested in Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names (as determined above).
* The minutiae of naming conventions should not hold much weight here because we aren't renaming the Nobel Prize in Economics article, just changing how the subject of that article is referenced in this article.  Even the Nobel Prize in Economics starts off with the words....The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel'. So abandon that specious claim that we should perpetuate inaccuracy for the sake of misinterpreting naming conventions because at least the start of the NPiE article corrects the inaccuracy perpetuated by adherance to the naming convention.
* Think. How does Friedman put it on his c.v.?
* Think. How does the Nobel Foundation refer to it?
Submitted, without respect for those who wish to perpetuate inaccuracies. —ExplorerCDT 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal and Straw Poll

message: A vote to support the above proposal means rendering the text as User:ExplorerCDT proposed.
TO AVOID CONFUSION: do not put any counter proposals up.  Just vote this proposal up or down. 
# ExplorerCDT 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: A vote to oppose the above proposal means you don't support ExplorerCDT's proposed text.
TO AVOID CONFUSION: do not put any counter proposals up.  Just vote this proposal up or down.
# That's your view that they are all wrong. Prize is awarded in accordance with the same principles as those for the other five prizes, and under sponsorship and approval of Nobel Fundation. For Britannica, Encarta and most other people, including scholars, correct title is Nobel Prize in Economics. -- Vision Thing -- 18:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: We should refer to prize in accordance with usual practice in both common use and scholarly sources   as "Nobel Prize in Economics". -- Vision Thing -- 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2

message: #-- Vision Thing -- 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * Accuracy should not take second place to laziness, and what VisionThing seems to ignore, the space limitations of print and editorial concerns (which comprise most of what google scholar quotes...here we're not confined by paper or space). He ignores accuracy, and the admonishment not to confuse people with counter-proposals, so I both oppose his counter-proposal and his having made a counter-proposal. —ExplorerCDT 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: This is not the right place to decide or even discus this issue.
This issue exists at least in each article for all winners of the prize and should be resolved once and for all.
This very same issue was already discussed at length in regards to the name of the linked article itself: Nobel Prize in Economics and the resolution archived there should either be made standard or be changed. People with an agenda should get over themselves and accept whatever is decided, we certainly can't have the same argument again and again every time the prize is mentioned in any article.
Please lets move this discussion to Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. --Lost Goblin 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 3

message: Why isn't this book mentioned at all except at the end?  I'd venture to say it's his most popular writing.  I'm going to put it in the beginning.  Uhgreen 14:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalism and Freedom 

message: i just wanted to mention, that afaik, he died on Nov 16th.
in the first line of the text - and in the table on the right as well, the date is 15th, which is, according to my knowledge, incorrect --Stardust.sk 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of death 

message: A reference to Salvador Allende's "democratically elected government" was removed on account of the fact that the Senate appointed him as president.  I would say Allende was democratically elected, since his party received the largest share of the vote in the 1970 election in Chile.  He had to be appointed by the senate because his share of the vote was less than 50%, but he still won a democratic election, and I suspect this edit is a bit of politicking by someone of a US Republican persuasion.  Unless of course it's being suggested that any vote of less than 50% is invalid... in which case George W. Bush wasn't democratically elected in 2000, and Tony Blair has never been!  MFlet1 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salvador Allende 

message: I had edited this paragraph (see below), removing "Anti-Communists" and placing "Communists" instead. I think I just misunderstood the intention. It should probably be changed back. The paragraph is at the end of the article.
"Friedman also traveled to Hong Kong to give lectures, meet with government leaders and encourage them to adopt free trade and implement free-market policies, which led to criticism from Communists. He also advocated ending trade embargos against Cuba and Apartheid South Africa."
199.8.16.1 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your change, he was invited and welcomed by communist China to give a series of lectures there, which pissed off anti-communists in the US. --Lost Goblin 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti?"-Communists 

message: The article states "In addition, he headed the Reagan administration committee that researched the possibility of a move towards a paid/volunteer armed force, and played a role in the abolition of the draft that took place in the 1970s in the U.S."  This does not sound right - might they mean the Nixon administration?
: Good catch, I fixed it --Lost Goblin 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this right? 

message: My local newspaper mentions a Janet Friedman, supposedly a daughter, also surviving him.  I've only ever heard of David and Rose.  Any ideas?
: Yes, I can confirm it. --Lost Goblin 11:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ditto to Lost Goblin. —ExplorerCDT 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Janet Friedman? 

message: He couldn´t have been the fourth and last child of his parents when his sisters were younger than him...
85.207.50.182 13:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: Please comment at Template_talk:In_the_news#Please_add_Friedman.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Friedman's death be noted on Main Page? 

message: I think we should include comments by pro-free-market writers. If there are comments by anti-free-market writers or other Friedman critics, include those too.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote:
*Mr. Friedman was the great economist of our time, who more than anyone saved the economics profession from dogma. 
I put in a similar quote the other day, but I think it was deleted. --Uncle Ed 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted that quote because it seemed to me that it is better to put sentence "he is known as one of the most influential economists of the 20th century" instead and source it to the newspapers like "The Washington Post" and "The Economist", rather than to have a random quote from "The Washington Times". -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks to both of you: those are useful explanations. --Uncle Ed 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: I put the GA nomination on hold for the following reasons: The article, while is starting to be better written, has many improvements still remaining to be done.  It needs better structure. It doesn't cover the issue of Milton Friedman well or as intensely as a good biography should.  I suggest looking at the Rutgers Magazine article (here) recently published for biographical details that are missing and correcting some that are incorrect.  A lot of things aren't done within Wikipedia's Manual of Style. We need references to make this article pass the verifiability test.  Article isn't really that broad in its coverage, in fact, much of the substance of a discussion about the corpus of his work is noticeably absent.  The article regrettably hasn't been stable since his death, because some insecure, anonymous, and disrespectful people have sunk to vandalising it.  Article needs better images, especially if we get into a discussion of some of his economic theories (a MUST).  Now, I really like Milton Friedman, and would echo the call for a GA marker...just like I'm arguing for Rutgers (which both Friedman and I went to for undergraduate work) to name a building after him, and to get a statue erected of him (my project for the last few months).  I knew Dr. Friedman personally, exchanging correspondence and discussing things with him for almost 8 years right up through the last few weeks.  I would, more than most any of you, like to see this as a GA or even Featured Article...but...it's not ready yet.  Perhaps we can correct these things within the next seven days that I've placed the GA nomination on hold. —ExplorerCDT 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's curious that no one has ever done a serious biography of Friedman. His autobiography helps a lot of course, but it's not critical in the sense of tracing the influences. Rjensen 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * That is a puzzling question. But then again, there hasn't been a biography of many 20th century figures (Robert Frost and Robert Lowell immediately come to mind) until after their passing...and a bad ones at that.) —
* What this article still needs: (1) More in-depth discussion of Friedman's contribution to economics and finance. (2) Discussion of Friedman's contributions to popular issues (draft, marijuana, school vouchers, anti-communism). (3) Discussion/interpretation of his writings. (4) Better biography (I'll probably have to transfer some of the information from the Rutgers Magazine article cited above, I bet no one has even looked at that link yet). Just a few things (there are more, but these are prime). —ExplorerCDT 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By now, this article should be taken off hold, and passed or failed. Twinxor t 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I mentioned a source (Rutgers Magazine article on him) that has details this article is lacking (an in some places contradicts)...bet no one's even read the article.  Once those are corrected, and I feel other issues mentioned above adequately taken care of, then I'll say "sure"  Right now, it should be failed.  It doesn't deserve a pass at this time until the above issues are taken care of. —ExplorerCDT 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd like to jump on the "do something" bandwagon now myself, as I was curious about this on the GA list, it's been on hold well over a week. Homestarmy 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm going to be bold at this point and just delist it.  It's been on hold for quite a while, and once this improves more, the regular editors can decide to relist it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I put the Good Article nomination on hold 

message: Some historians of the fall of Communism in E Europe give Friedman modest credit for influencing economists before 1989-- for example Shock Waves: Eastern Europe after the Revolutions. by John Feffer 1992. Page 128. But no one proclaims his influence to be major in causing the overthrow of Communism. Indeed Friedman gets no mention at all in major histories such as Dissolution (1999) by Charles S. Maier; no mention in Exit-Voice Dynamics and the Collapse of East Germany: The Crisis of Leninism and the Revolution of 1989 by Steven Pfaff.  There is no mention of Friedman in  The Political Economy of State-Society Relations in Hungary and Poland: From Communism to the European Union by 
Anna Seleny. Scholars do say he was influential AFTER 1989 (for example Surge to Freedom: The End of Communist Rule in Eastern Europe by J. F. Brown  p. 97)Rjensen 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedman and Eastern Europe: important after 1989 

message: A couple of editors have removed the free (but small) image, and replaced it with a non-free (but higher quality) image. Unfortunately, this is not allowed. Our fair use policy says "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. . . If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." I know that professional, non-free images may look better, but we have to follow our policy on the matter. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which image to use? 

message: Firstly, for such an influential economist, I think this section could be expanded.  Secondly, why is there no Criticisms section?  I think this article focuses a bit much on his personal life and accomplishments and not enough on his intellectual ones.  Dont have time to help now, but perhaps later.  Please reply if you agree or disagree.  -- greek lamb 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly Contributions & Criticism? 

message: Wikipedia rules state: "Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted." [emphasis added] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "only when the purpose is to comment" --whwre is that in the rules? Rjensen 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:Fair use: Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. -- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economist quote 

message: The main picture posted in the bio table is incredibly unflattering. I hope this wasn't intentional but it seems odd to skip over his more famous portraits in favor of a rather obscure one. A quick Google Images search offers much better (as well as MUCH more recognizable) options. Bouchacha 06:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This picture is free, and those on Google Images are not. If you have a free picture of better quality, please upload it. -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone changed it already --Bouchacha 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Vandalism? 

message: Wasn't it Milton Friedman who told Bill Bennett the drug war was lost?  http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/milton_friedman.htm  68.12.160.167 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug War 

message: Picture is fine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.194.52 (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture is fine 

message: Power of Choice: the Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman is one PBS tonight. (for those of you who can get it)  --Kalmia 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power of Choice 

message: In honor of this most treasured friend of freedom, who recently passed away, let's bring this article up to Feature Article status! All Male Action 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring to Featured Article Status 

message: :"Friedman advocated that freer markets led to free people, and that Chile had an unfree economy which led to the military government, which then implemented open economy policies. These policies led to the end of military rule and a "free society".
Thats bullshit, 'cause Friedman was a corporativist!. --190.46.221.155 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously have not read anything from Friedman, or heard him speak. --Uriel 01:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Friedman certainly did many things wrong, he is still undoubtedly an expert on many economic issues. WooyiTalk, Editor review 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chilean dictatorshit 

message: Did Friedman support the invasion of Iraq? After school special 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I remember of an interview I read somewhere on the net, Friedman did not but his wife did.--Johnbull 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Milton Friedman was always against the Iraq War. Here is a WSJ Interview where he talks about it. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq 

message: I changed the infobox to scientist.  Friedman considered himself a scientist using the scientific method to investigate economic issues, so I think the  new infobox is warranted.  
--Reetoc 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are meshing Friedman's pantheon of work into one category. This is a mistake.  Friedman himself will explain. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed Infobox 

message: What kind of leftist bullshit is this?
"....The brutality of the Chilean dictatorship combined with its implementation of free market policies seemed to give the lie however, to Friedman's argument that free markets and free societies necessarily went together. His failure to criticize the regime which openly and explicitly implemented his policy recommendations, and his failure to acknowledge that it was only through the bloody military coup and overthrow of the freely and democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende that his policies could be imposed damaged his moral standing and weakened the power of his arguments that capitalism was about being "free to choose.""
First of all, the first part is only slightly semi true, that Friedman many times said he did learn that just having a "free market" wasn't enough.  He thought it would require a "free political system" but he found out they could be out of sync like that.  This is mentioned in the 2002 forward to "Capitalism and Freedom."   But he also pointed out many times, and here's the ultimate truth of the whole "chile thing" ... He spoke to people there to educate them, to help them become free.  And that's it.  Applying his principles, the people did throw off the chains of oppression.  Chile became "a miracle" because of Milton Friedman.   All that other stuff is crap... like the fact that he "met with Pinochet... as if, when the dictator says he wants to meet you, you tell him "no thanks."  And that's another aspect of Friedman, he would meet with anyone, and try to teach them, not just "tell them" things.
The next part is completely false, Friedman criticised the regime, basically, his whole life, so that comment about "his failure to criticize the regime" is pure bullshit.  And so is the part about his "failure to acknowledge" that "only through bloody ... overthrow of the freely and democratically elected socialist government... "  
As well as "damaged his moral standing?" ... to who?  "weakened the power of his argumenents that capitalism was about being 'free to choose'"  That's not an "argument" -- that's the definition.  Now if someone wanted to argue "you shouldn't be allowed to choose" ... I got a better idea, we'll make another TV show called "I'll choose for you" or "I know better than you."
Obviously, this needs editing but I'll give it some thought and see if someone else edits it or if you have comments.  But I wanted to explain the reason for the edits before making them. SecretaryNotSure 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  again with the Chile thing 

message: Please site the sources for Estonia part, or delete it!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.39.32 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonia Section Needs to Site its sources!!! 

message: I've attempted several times to make this article less subjective, but it keeps getting reverted or changed. The articles of most other major economists include a criticism section, and aren't anywhere as subjective as this one. In attempting to make things more cohesive and identical as far as format is concerned, I've edited a number of things (Such as that Friedman's philosophies intrinsically result in a freer/richer people, or that he promoted civil liberties when he was very strongly against freedom of association, etc) or prefaced them with statements that clearly define that these are merely opinions with little to no fact behind them besides Friedman himself claiming as such ("In Friedman's opinion" etc). In addition, Salvador Allende was democratically elected and I can't find any references to massive human rights abuses or meddling by the ruling party in the democratic process (unlike, say, Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro), and so government seems more appropriate than regime. Lastly, I've removed several inaccurate claims that aren't backed up by anyone but Friedman himself in interviews- as I said, I could claim I'm Sailor Moon but without solid references nobody will believe me- Friedman himself claiming something doesn't make it so, especially when there are many references that say otherwise, or are ambiguous.
Rvannith 06:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity of article questioned 

message: The lack of balance in this article is a discredit to Wikipedia. Whatever your attitude towards Friedman, it is beyond dispute that his theories are not universally accepted and his legacy is contested. To exclude such criticism on the grounds that you do not agree with it is to demonstrate willful disregard for the principle of balance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.27.34 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of balance 

message: "It's as if Adam Smith has transcended the centuries through Milton Friedman to reassert economic supremacy and modernity in educated minds, once and for all. Friedman exposed Marxist/socialist theory as the romantic utopian superstitious means to dictatorship that it was.... even aredent socialists are rethinking the 21st Century due to success of free markets systems coupled with democracy, benefitting all classes. Some fringe intellectuals still can't bring themselves to refer to it as anything else but "that radical capitalism".
This is a paragraph from the criticism section of this article.  So how hard is wikipedia trying to make itself to be a joke?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.78.12 (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is criticism? 

message: Why did someone remove most of my mention of Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine? The entire book is a refutation of the implementation of Friedman's economic principles. Whether you agree with her view or not, it's regardless a prominent book, currently a bestseller, that is very relevant and I think it should be mentioned beyond one sentence. I think it should be restored closer to how I had it. What I had was a couple of sentences with direct quotations from the author, and I think it's better than the vague, one sentence mention that replaced it. What do you think?
Jcrav2k6 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether and how to include Klein has been much argued & reverted. I think the diff for the main edit which brought the Klein bit to it's current state was: . Maybe there's something useful in there you can revive. I think it's worthwhile to include something from Klein, because her book is so prominent and (I haven't read it so this is second-hand knowledge) apparently focuses a lot on Friedman. The debates where on where to include it and how much. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Current Klein citation either should be summarized or it should be shortened (without any loss of meaning) and formated correctly.  --Doopdoop (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm trying to put this in a way that won't be taken as a flame, but it's hard.  Friedman certainly is a conservative eocnomist, but he's still obviously within the band of what would be considered "mainstream" to anyone with even a passing understanding of economics. Naomi Klein, by contrast, is a crank.  It's good that they have the Krugman quote up there, but if this is meant to be a serious article there should be more quotes from actual economists (like Krugman) and fewer from irrelevant oddballs like Klein, whose criticism couldn't be more irrelevant if she started quoted Posh Spice.  -- HowardW Jan 20, 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Back to Klein. I guess I'm coming to this conversation late, but why isn't reference to the Shock Doctrine in the article? This recent reversion looks correct to me, in that the link is to a general site that doesn't help much in regard to Friedman. The book overall does, however. Klein is definitely a "recognized critic", whether she presents a caricature or not.Cretog8 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naomi Klein 

message: I agree with above. Where the heck is the massive amount of criticism for someone whose works have done far more harm to society, the planet and international community than Keynesian economics ever did. Has the right wing taken control of Wikipedia? Let's set this straight Wiki editors. Either we delete the critical section from Keynes or allow some into Miltie's.
Meraloma (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Current Klein citation either should be summarized or it should be shortened (without any loss of meaning) and formated correctly.  --Doopdoop (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm trying to put this in a way that won't be taken as a flame, but it's hard.  Friedman certainly is a conservative eocnomist, but he's still obviously within the band of what would be considered "mainstream" to anyone with even a passing understanding of economics. Naomi Klein, by contrast, is a crank.  It's good that they have the Krugman quote up there, but if this is meant to be a serious article there should be more quotes from actual economists (like Krugman) and fewer from irrelevant oddballs like Klein, whose criticism couldn't be more irrelevant if she started quoted Posh Spice.  -- HowardW Jan 20, 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Back to Klein. I guess I'm coming to this conversation late, but why isn't reference to the Shock Doctrine in the article? This recent reversion looks correct to me, in that the link is to a general site that doesn't help much in regard to Friedman. The book overall does, however. Klein is definitely a "recognized critic", whether she presents a caricature or not.Cretog8 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I removed the Heller thing from the criticism paragraph. The opinion of someone, whoever he is, on the behaviour of some followers of Friedman is inappropriate here. Please focus on the grounds of economics or politics where much more appropriate points can be developped. --Bombastus (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heller 

message: The Shock Doctrine in truth has little to no evidence in showing Friedman "complicit" in the military coup's of other nations. Melorama, im no expert on wiki, but those views are not supposed to spill out into your work on here. Klien has no evidence and are we really saying "She wrote a book critisising, she has to be included"? 
I mean I say that "The Sky is blue, principally because of a reflection upon smurfland, not the sea. As previously thought" and write a sizable book on the issue. That doesnt make what im saying anything other than unbased and unevidenced crap. The quote on the lack of evidence in Kliens book is fine, but Klien's views arguing Friedman complicit shouldnt be shown at all, its based in fantasy. Superpie (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Honestly