First was Paul Krugman, who mused Where Are the Friedmans of Yesterdyear?
But there’s another important factor. Modern conservatism doesn’t have Friedman-like figures — people who would be prominent economists thanks to their research whatever their politics, who are also public intellectuals– because it doesn’t want them. The movement prefers hacks, who needn’t be even minimally competent but can be counted on to defend the party line without any risk of taking an independent stand.
|Nick Rowe didn’t like it very much so he brought in Galbraith.
|Cullen Roche took exception to the pot-shot at Galbraith and brought in Keynes.
Cullen then summarized Friedman’s Monetarism quite well too:
- Inflation is a greater concern than unemployment.
- Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.
- An independent Central Bank is the ideal policymaker.
- Free and unfettered markets are inherently stable and only fail when government fails.
- The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU).
- The importance of expectations in macro models.
We also agree with his observation, “Friedman has influenced economics tremendously over the last 40 years and the world is slowly digging its way out of his mistakes. After all, while Friedman might have won the economic battle of the 70’s, he’s losing the economic war.”
Here is The Economist, which started all this.