Free to Choose: A Personal Statement

Milton Friedman was a highly visible economist, statistician, and policycommentator during the Twentieth Century. Before he died in 2006, he wroteand co-wrote several books relating economic theory, policy studies, andstatistics. He was the recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976.I just finished reading "Free To Choose: A Personal Statement," written byThomas Friedman and his wife, Rose Friedman. The book is dense and full ofwell thought-out arguments for free markets, smaller government, and howpolicies that adhere to these principles will result in greater liberty andfreedom for the people that live under them.This book is almost thirty years old and it shows. Many of the numbersthe Friedmans use in the book are laughable today, especially those they use assalaries for the common man or the cost of an average home.It's fascinating, however, they write at the end of the Carteradministration that "the tide is turning.""The failure of Western governments to achieve their proclaimed objectiveshas produced a widespread reaction against big government. In Britain thereaction swept Margaret Thatcher to power in 1979 on a platform pledgingher Conservative government to reverse the socialist policies that hadbeen followed by both Labour and earlier Conservative governments eversince the end of World War II.""Free To Choose" is organized in chapters that each spend a liberal amountof print on a specific category of policy thinking. The first chapter, "ThePower Of The Market" spends nearly 30 pages covering the ideals of a freemarket, the dangers of price controls, and the role of government withrespect to markets. The second chapter is devoted to governments' role infree trade and overall liberty and economic growth. Hint: Friedman isn't afan of tariffs or any other kind of government meddling with trade betweennations. He offers a compelling historical argument for free trade byexamining the governance and trade policies of Japan during the latter halfof the 19th century and India during the latter half of the 20th century.The third chapter, "The Anatomy of Crisis," is perhaps the most relevant toreaders today. It examines the modern banking system in the United Statesfrom the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the depression nobodyremembers from 1920-21, and the Great Depression of the 1930s. For thosewho believe we are currently at risk of suffering from the same mistakes ormaking greater ones today in our vulnerable financial status, this chapteroffers some brilliant insights.In the conclusion of this chapter, the Friedmans write:"In one respect the (Federal Reserve) System has remained completelyconsistent throughout. It blames all problems on external influencesbeyond its control and takes credit for any and all favorableoccurrences. It thereby continues to promote the myth that the privateeconomy is unstable, while its behavior continues to document the realitythat government is today the major source of economic instability."The fourth chapter, "Cradle to Grave," examines the development of the*welfare state* beginning in Europe in the late 1800s and then in theU.S. in the 1920s. Friedman spotlights health, education, and welfare inthis chapter because at the time the book was written, they fell under asingle department within the federal government."The waste is distressing, but it the least of the evils of thepaternalistic programs that have grown to such massive size. Their majorevil is their effect on the fabric of our society. They weaken thefamily; reduce the incentive to work, save, and innovate; reduce theaccumulation of capital; and limit our freedom. These are thefundamental standards by which they should be judged."The following chapter challenges the popular notions of what "equality"means. The Friedmans distinguish between the following: * Equality of outcome * Equality of opportunity * Equality before GodConcerning *equality of outcome*, they write:"Life is not fair. It is tempting to believe that government can rectifywhat nature has spawned. But it is also important to recognize how muchwe benefit from the very unfairness we deplore."This chapter goes on to examine the effects of egalitarian policies aspracticed in the US and in other modern societies."... a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end upwith greater freedom and greater equality. Though a by-product offreedom, greater equality is not an accident. A free society releases theenergies and abilities of people to pursue their own objectives. Itprevents some people from arbitrarily suppressing others. It does notprevent some people from achieving positions of privilege, but so long asfreedom is maintained, it prevents those positions of privilege frombeing institutionalized; they are subject to continued attack by otherable, ambitious people. Freedom means diversity but also mobility. Itpreserves the opportunity for today's disadvantaged to become tomorrow'sprivileged and, in the process, enabled almost everyone, from top tobottom, to enjoy a fuller and richer life."Next, the Friedmans attach "What's Wrong with Our Schools?"It's no surprise their position is that centralized planning is asubstantial culprit of the problem with schools. Again, freedom is theanswer, they say. Vouchers, for example, tied with freedom to choosepublic schools, are an ideal way to encourage competition between privateand public schools and drive education quality up.I found this passage about public subsidies of higher education shockingconsidering what we have observed in 2009:"When we first started writing about higher education, we had a good dealof sympathy for the (justification that public subsidies was aninvestment in future productivity and economic growth of society). We nolonger do. In the interim we have tried to induce the people who make thisargument to be specific about the alleged social benefits. The answer isalmost always simply bad economics. We are told that the nation benefitsby having more highly trained people, that investment in providing suchskills is essential for economic growth, that more trained people raisethe productivity for the rest of us. These statements are correct. Butnone is a valid reason for subsidizing higher education. Each statementwould be equally correct if made about physical capital (i.e., machines,factory buildings, etc.), yet **hardly anyone would conclude that tax moneyshould be used to subsidize the capital investment of General Motors orGeneral Electric.**Milton Friedman is undoubtably spinning in his grave today.Following education is the question of "Who Protects the Consumer?" Thischapter discusses the development of the Interstate Commerce Commission,The Food and Drug Administration, The Consumer Products Safety Commission,The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. TheFriedmans raise some very valid questions about the government's role inestablishing these authorities and whether they are effective in theirstated objectives.For example, many are familiar with Ralph Nader's book, "Unsafe at AnySpeed," in which he supposedly documents the safety risk the ChevroletCorvair was to its occupants. This book ignited a firestorm that eventuallycrushed the Corvair out of production and resulted in new governmentregulations pertaining to the manufacture of automobiles. It's difficult toargue that the outcome was a bad thing, but what about the originalpremise? Was the Corvair that bad? My dad was a Corvair collector and hadtwo that he tinkered with, restored, and drove around on occasion. I alwaysthought they were odd cars because the engine was in the back. TheFriedmans point out that ten years after Nader's book landed, "one of theagencies that was set up in response to the subsequent public outcryfinally got around to testing the Corvair that started the whole thing.They spent a year and a half comparing the performance of the Corvair withthe performance of other comparable vehicles and they concluded, 'The1960-63 Corvair compared favorably with the other contemporary vehiclesused in the tests.'"Next is "Who Protects the Worker?" Here labor unions land square in thecrosshairs. Also addressed are government interventions into work such asregulations against child labor, minimum wage laws, OSHA oversight, workerscompensation, and more.Chapter 9 is about inflation. This isn't very relevant right now, butlikely will deserve a re-read in a year or so.Here, Friedman puts his statistician muscles to work and establishesthrough numbers a strong correlation between monetary control and consumerprices. When the the Treasury and the Federal Reserve flood the marketwith money, prices respond by going up.The final chapter is a nice capstone on the book and discusses how the U.S.Constitution relates to many of the policies discussed and how it is erodedby some.Appendix A is an interesting inclusion. It is the party platform from theSocialist party during the 1928 presidential campaign. The Friedmans gothrough each of the 14 items in the platform and demonstrate that despitethe Socialist Party not having a chance in Hell of ever having a candidateelected, since 1928, just about each and every one of these ideas put forthby the Socialist Party has been enacted.That's something to think about.[...]. It's not aquick read, but definitely an informative and educational one.

This book presents a clear, thoughtful, and rational argument for maximizing free choice within the limits largely set by John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" (that is, one may not use his or her liberty to harm another).Friedman sets out a strong case that when people are left to pursue their own interests, the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts, and the commonwealth benefits more than when central planners try to orchestrate economies. That should be obvious now that nations like China and Vietnam, while retaining political repression, have given wide scope to free markets and thereby lifted millions out of poverty. Contrast that with Cuba or Venezuela, where central economic planning prevails, and the people are largely destitute.The book's argument is often attacked as an appeal to "greed," which is unfortunate as "self-interest" is not necessarily greed. I think mostly of one of my leftist friends in this regard who assails capitalism and whatnot, but who, due to his comfortable job in a government bureau, is able to pursue an acting and singing career after hours. Is he not, there, pursuing his self interest? And doesn't the larger public benefit from his ability to deploy his talents? I along with many have enjoyed many of his performances, and will continue to. It's just Friedman's thesis at work: we all benefit when everyone seeks his own interest.The book is often attacked as being anarchistic (or something like that) -- that is, that "limited government" or "less regulation" means "no government or "no regulation." Quite to the contrary, Friedman argues for a very clear and specific role for government in regulating natural monopolies, enforcing contracts, and taking many other actions to make sure that markets function openly. He clearly embraces regulation with the stipulation that when employed the benefits exceed the costs. And there's the rub with many government programs (say, agriculture subsidies): they favor entrenched interests rather than the commonwealth.His arguments about free trade convince me that it is the best way to help the poor in the world. I've read that the annual subsidy for one cow in Belgium rivals the annual salary of an African subsistence farmer. Take down that trade barrier benefiting the rich Belgian cow owner, and that farmer suddenly has a chance to present his goods on a world market. My point is, if you care about the poor, and if you care about social justice and all that, this might just be a crazy (and, for a change, effective) way to go.I don't fully agree with some of the book's policy prescriptions regarding environmental, education or monetary policy, but I suggest that Friedman's thoughts, formulated in the 1970s and published first in 1980, are far more likely to be successful than current ideas like "common core" or "quantitative easing."Overall, this is a thought-provoking read no matter what your political stripe is. Check it out.

It's for you.

This book met my goals at a large extent. I’d recommend it to everyone who wants to have an overview about the benefits of free market for whatever the thing. Based on data and experiences, the book shows that free market is, all in all, a better option than regulation or nationalisation of property/activity.

Start to teach your children the lessons you learn from this book early. If you do it will inoculate them from the brain washing they will receive from the public school system.

The quality of the book and print is sufficient to read it. It could be better but since you really care about it's content let me focus on something else.The argumentation presented in this book is very well formulated and easy to understand. You do not have to agree with every conclusion drawn from this argumentation, after all we are not as reasonable as we should be, however I think this book summarizes quite well the train of thought behind the liberal worldview and is definately worth a recommendation.

O livro apresenta de modo muito didático, analisando cada faceta da economia e do governo, as vantagens do sistema capitalista em contraposição ao socialismo.