Milton Friedman, hijacked by conservatives, fan of drug legalization and land tax
at 15:53
Obviously anyone who thinks they know anything about economics will be mourning (to a greater or lesser extent anyway) the death of one of the twentieth century's greatest economists. Milton Friedman. So significant was he that I once thought they had named Milton Keynes after him and John Maynard! Come to think of it, with its fusion of central planning but with one of the country's first Cathedrals of the Almighty Consumer at its heart, MK is a strange coincidental fusion of the two men's ideas anyway!
I pity economists sometimes (though I say that through gritted teeth of course). For Milton Friedman's memory will forever be tainted by his association with Thatcherism and Reaganomics. Not in the usual sense of how he must have been the malevolent force behind them but in how little of his liberal vision they actually grasped. And how little of what they did grasp they actually implemented successfully. For the Europe that they so enthusiastically at first participated in was built as a protectionist's nirvana. The constant changing of which monetary aggregate to target was testament to how hopelessly they understood his view of stable money. For it should be remembered that he was just as critical of the contraction of money that he conclusively proved gave rise to the Great Depression, and, in the late eighties the Japanese slump, as he was of the loose money that created inflationary bubbles in the seventies and hangs over us now.
Now, I don't know whether the Freedom Association, which probably did as much as anyone to promote his ideas to Thatcher, were of as social conservative a bent as she, but she and her government failed completely to grasp the essential other side of the Freedom to Choose that he espoused. I cannot conceive of them taking on board his ideas on legalizing drugs - the criminalization of which was the greatest state subsidy to and protection for organized crime, he said. And the conservative vested interests then as well as now fail to understand his support for Land Value Tax. Whilst not a Georgist, in the sense that he did not believe the government should take all of the land value in tax, like Adam Smith he regarded taxes on such externalities as the fairest and least distortionary form of tax.
There can be no economic freedom without the personal freedoms that allow us all to choose individually how we will live our lives and the resources we need to do it. There can be no level playing field by making life easier for corporations but not for people. And there can be no free trade without that level playing field. That was why stable money was so important, as a level playing field, and that was why personal freedoms were and are so important and complimentary, for us all to compete with our own unique specialisms on that level playing field. Without the whole package the free market that many have imagined just cannot exist. And the greatest obstacle to it is political power.
It's only really in the past few years that I have begun to be able to isolate economists in my own mind from the context of the political movements that adopted their scholarship in some form or another. Adam Smith is another, hijacked by the "right" with all the connotations that has, whom I now find that if one can divorce them from the image of their latter day political tub-thumpers, speaks a lot of sense to someone trying to find an economics of the liberal centre. Even Keynes is another, hero of the opposite political camp, adopted by pseudo socialists and vilified by the right as a result. Together with Friedman, all three of these men have this reputational problem that their names are now routinely taken in vain when describing much bigger, more muddled, and often selective and twisted political implementations of the seeds of sense they planted.
I can't help thinking that if humanity needs a visitation from the afterlife, if such there be, then it ought to be a delegation of these economists who, now reunited, can compare the notes from their "great experiments" and find that middle road, and more importantly, the way to sell it to people!
Trackback URL for this post:
Comments
Indeed.
Adam Smith of course is now being claimed by the left as some sort of proto-socialist.
I don't know a huge amount about Keynes, I think the left took his theories too far, and used them to justify too much state intervention... I believe he agreed with the general thrust of Hayek's Road to Serfdom, not something you'd expect from the characterisation of him by his followers and critics...
Politicians are likely to grab what fits their purpose... hence Thatcher and Reagan took some of Friedman as he repudiated socialistic thinking, but only took enough that it didn't undermine their social ideals...
Thanks for posting that. I have to say like many today whilst I use the terms liberally, I'm not really sure about what is left and right today, and I think probably use them at least mentally in quotes all the time.
I was trying to get at whether the pruning of Friedman's social libertarianism happened when he was adopted by the politicians or through organizations such as TFA in selling the ideas to politicians, and I'm glad you clarified that. I don't support some aspects of your work (yet?) - e.g I don't really see a strong national parliamentary democracy as something to be fought for (and see it indeed as something that conflicts somewhat with limited government"), and perhaps by extension then a strong national defense. But back in March I blogged on a similar vein.
I'm not sure you would find many Lib Dems who would claim Friedman as inspiration for their libertarian bent but not also acknowledge the economic side. We were actually not long ago discussing this here. And again "privatisation" as a word is something that has been somewhat tainted by the way things were sometimes done in the eighties rather than the principle of not having governments owning and controlling the means of production.
For example, Friedman himself seems to me to have been quite a fan in some areas (eg education) of co-operativism and it would appear to me that this, rather than the wholesale disposal of assets to whoever can afford them at the point of sale, would be a better approach for some aspects of currently government functions like education. And RailTrack, such is the state of British railways, was probably effectively one of those "natural monopolies" that Adam Smith might have kept in social control - at least until a better way of splitting it up was found.
In other words - voluntary co-operation does not necessarily imply "only if you can afford to buy the sahres". And privatisation does not necessarily mean pumping tons of money in to make it attractive in an IPO and then giving it away...:) But the way it was done in the eighties also had a political and fiscal impetus. It's one of those things that I am sure Friedman would have agreed with - "if you want to get there, I wouldn't have started from here". And I suppose the holy grail is finding a way of selling such economic and social models in a political millieu that is actually stacked against them. It seems to me that the privatisation of Thatcherism did not, and quite possibly was not intended to, give rise to "small government" (given the more authoritarian approach on social issues and even on governance issues) but was a way of sticking one up an opposing political viewpoint.
And that, I suppose, is why I "pity economists" - with theories fine in practice but necessarily relying on the one thing in Friedman's case he was dead set against - coercive political power - to implement!
Personally, I count my philosophy as "geo-libertarian"."
Add comment































comment
I agree that whilst Thatcher took on important aspects of Friedman's economics, she refused to take on his general libertarianism socially. That is why you will notice that the press release we put out does not mnention social liberties other than those involved in the extension of the free market that Thatcher pursued.
As for us, we are a libertarian organisation, in a social as well as economic sense. Free speech, civil partnerships, fatty foods, porn, smoking- it's a free market. There is a range of thinking about drugs, certainly, but I would say there are undoubtedly plenty of libertarians who agree with Friedman.
It is interesting that you say the Thatcherite Right hijacked Friedman by taking on his economic libertarianism whilst ignoring his social libertarianism.
Wouldn't it be exactly as inconsistent if the Lib Dems grabbed him in order to legalise drugs but refused to accept his views on privatisation?
More generally, I think this post does highlight an interesting meeting of minds on some topics amongst the supposed Right" and various supposedly "Left" groups, including various Lib Dems (some of whom are definitely more free marketeer than Cameron!).
Mark Wallace,
Campaign Manager,
The Freedom Association"