Scan barcode
mandalor3960's review
2.0
Milton Friedman’s entire book can be divided into two parts: the first two chapters explain liberalism and neoliberalism while the rest of the chapters are about certain United States’ policies Friedman would change in accordance to his philosophy.
I felt that the title is misleading. His theory on the relationship of capitalism and freedom take up only first chapter while and the other chapters are application of it. I was expecting a longer exposition on liberalism but the first chapter opened up my eyes to the relationship between economic freedom in political terms, as well as freedom extending to economic freedom.
I admire him for admitting in some sections that he is not very knowledgeable and that he will try to take an educated estimate. I also admired that as much as Friedman is a champion of freedom, he adds important limitations to the freedom in acceptable forms of monopolies, taxation for schooling, and other things, hence why he falls under neoliberalism instead of classical liberalism.
Some chapters are heavy with economic terms that I was not familiar with so I spent a lot of time researching them. As much as this book is written out to the everday man, it is hard to read a chapter on Keynesian concepts when you haven't taken ECON 101.
As I read more sections, I began to find that Friedman seemed less convincing than his central emphasis of freedom because of the way he presents his support. Take for example this quote:
“Another striking fact, contrary to popular conception, is that capitalism leads to less inequality than alternative systems of organization and that the development of capitalism has greatly lessened the extent of inequality. Comparisons over space and time alike confirm this view.”
What comparisons? Friedman makes remarks like these several times. When he makes hefty claims about why the neolibertarian approach is the best, he will not provide any facts but instead footnotes to his book A Monetary History of the United States or other books. The book feels like a pamphlet; a sneak bit of a full explanation on why these policies are bad. Friedman writes like Karl Marx who wrote few facts but longwinded rhetoric. I believe this book was meant to be a golden pamphlet on why capitalism is supreme and less of a in depth research. All the topics that Friedman covers cannot be explained in 230 pages. Friedman’s third chapter, twenty one pages in length, is a snapshot of Friedman’s book, The Great Contraction, a 200 page book.
Of my own amateur criticisms, I was confused as to why Friedman is in support of a negative income tax. A major criticism should be the decrease in inventiveness to work. Friedman writes like a sociologist at times and I thought he would have noticed this as a downside to negative income tax. Something about the entire concept of a negative income tax does not seem to fit in with neoliberal thought.
I found it ironic that neoliberalism champions freedom but is against monopolies. I can see how monopolies decrease freedom for others to compete but you restrict freedom by being against monopolies. His decree of when a business becomes a monopoly is also unclear.
I’m disappointed because in the last chapter, he writes like he is speaking on a soapbox. He reiterates his criticisms from the chapters coming off as persuasion. He then astonishingly praises certain government programs but doubles down on that saying the damage done by programs in recent decades hurt the country more than anything. Friedman’s sidestepping and acknowledging that some government programs are good shattered my entire perception of neoliberalism. Apparently, there are some instances where exceptions can be made to certain government programs. The other half of the chapter reads like a social theory where he writes about his believe that government programs do not work because the people are forced to act against their own interest. Having finished this book, I felt starved for truth. I believe this is a great book in explaining neoliberalism but not at all in providing facts and truth in support of it besides references to other books.
Rating Update 3/12/2019 - 4 stars to 3 stars. The principles chapter I enjoyed earn 5 stars, while some other ones come off as 2 stars or 1 star.
September 1, 2019
Rating Update
With the adoption of my new rating system, a two star rating is befitting. The original review and rating updates conform to the new rating system. This book convinced me of the neoliberalism philosophy, whose first two chapters centered on explaining the neoliberalism philosophy. Unfortunately after these two chapters, the book became a chore to read, with concepts beyond my limited understanding of economics, topics that stretched out far too long, and concepts that I didn't enjoy in the neoliberalism philosophy, leading me to see myself later as more of a classic liberal than a neoliberal.
January 1, 2020
Update
I have changed the color of the rating from yellow to yellow with a grey outline.
I felt that the title is misleading. His theory on the relationship of capitalism and freedom take up only first chapter while and the other chapters are application of it. I was expecting a longer exposition on liberalism but the first chapter opened up my eyes to the relationship between economic freedom in political terms, as well as freedom extending to economic freedom.
I admire him for admitting in some sections that he is not very knowledgeable and that he will try to take an educated estimate. I also admired that as much as Friedman is a champion of freedom, he adds important limitations to the freedom in acceptable forms of monopolies, taxation for schooling, and other things, hence why he falls under neoliberalism instead of classical liberalism.
Some chapters are heavy with economic terms that I was not familiar with so I spent a lot of time researching them. As much as this book is written out to the everday man, it is hard to read a chapter on Keynesian concepts when you haven't taken ECON 101.
As I read more sections, I began to find that Friedman seemed less convincing than his central emphasis of freedom because of the way he presents his support. Take for example this quote:
“Another striking fact, contrary to popular conception, is that capitalism leads to less inequality than alternative systems of organization and that the development of capitalism has greatly lessened the extent of inequality. Comparisons over space and time alike confirm this view.”
What comparisons? Friedman makes remarks like these several times. When he makes hefty claims about why the neolibertarian approach is the best, he will not provide any facts but instead footnotes to his book A Monetary History of the United States or other books. The book feels like a pamphlet; a sneak bit of a full explanation on why these policies are bad. Friedman writes like Karl Marx who wrote few facts but longwinded rhetoric. I believe this book was meant to be a golden pamphlet on why capitalism is supreme and less of a in depth research. All the topics that Friedman covers cannot be explained in 230 pages. Friedman’s third chapter, twenty one pages in length, is a snapshot of Friedman’s book, The Great Contraction, a 200 page book.
Of my own amateur criticisms, I was confused as to why Friedman is in support of a negative income tax. A major criticism should be the decrease in inventiveness to work. Friedman writes like a sociologist at times and I thought he would have noticed this as a downside to negative income tax. Something about the entire concept of a negative income tax does not seem to fit in with neoliberal thought.
I found it ironic that neoliberalism champions freedom but is against monopolies. I can see how monopolies decrease freedom for others to compete but you restrict freedom by being against monopolies. His decree of when a business becomes a monopoly is also unclear.
I’m disappointed because in the last chapter, he writes like he is speaking on a soapbox. He reiterates his criticisms from the chapters coming off as persuasion. He then astonishingly praises certain government programs but doubles down on that saying the damage done by programs in recent decades hurt the country more than anything. Friedman’s sidestepping and acknowledging that some government programs are good shattered my entire perception of neoliberalism. Apparently, there are some instances where exceptions can be made to certain government programs. The other half of the chapter reads like a social theory where he writes about his believe that government programs do not work because the people are forced to act against their own interest. Having finished this book, I felt starved for truth. I believe this is a great book in explaining neoliberalism but not at all in providing facts and truth in support of it besides references to other books.
Rating Update 3/12/2019 - 4 stars to 3 stars. The principles chapter I enjoyed earn 5 stars, while some other ones come off as 2 stars or 1 star.
September 1, 2019
Rating Update
With the adoption of my new rating system, a two star rating is befitting. The original review and rating updates conform to the new rating system. This book convinced me of the neoliberalism philosophy, whose first two chapters centered on explaining the neoliberalism philosophy. Unfortunately after these two chapters, the book became a chore to read, with concepts beyond my limited understanding of economics, topics that stretched out far too long, and concepts that I didn't enjoy in the neoliberalism philosophy, leading me to see myself later as more of a classic liberal than a neoliberal.
January 1, 2020
Update
I have changed the color of the rating from yellow to yellow with a grey outline.
teokajlibroj's review against another edition
1.0
Milton Friedman is (along with Keynes) one of the two most famous economists of the 20th century. Reading his book, its hard to see why. He completely avoids making an argument, instead merely stating a point (minimum wage causes unemployment, income tax is worsens inequality) without any supporting evidence. In fact the book is noticeable for the lack of facts, references or citations.
The chapter dealing with discrimination has to be the worst discussion of racism I have ever come across. Friedman seems to have little understanding of the topic and ends up defending an employer's "right" to be racist. To him, racism is merely a "taste" that some people have, no different than a different taste in music (he actually uses this analogy). If they are willing to pay for this, then they should be allowed to and the rest of society has no right to judge them. This is such absurd nonsense that it makes me wonder how he ever won a Nobel Prize.
The chapter dealing with discrimination has to be the worst discussion of racism I have ever come across. Friedman seems to have little understanding of the topic and ends up defending an employer's "right" to be racist. To him, racism is merely a "taste" that some people have, no different than a different taste in music (he actually uses this analogy). If they are willing to pay for this, then they should be allowed to and the rest of society has no right to judge them. This is such absurd nonsense that it makes me wonder how he ever won a Nobel Prize.
tonyleachsf's review against another edition
4.0
I can’t agree with all of this - but I’m surprised by how much I do.
cinnamonspy's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
Great summary of the different economic problems America has faced and solutions to them.
lucytoner's review against another edition
2.0
Not sure what to say about this one…. Friedman’s argument that minimum wage increases unemployment was interesting to say the least oh and that tax avoidance is good of economic well being! Either way I now know what the Friedman Doctrine is.
jackroche's review against another edition
Look I went through a big "both sides" phase, ok?
zaggeta's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting ideas, but a bit dated. Free to Choose has all the information in this book and is better presented and more substantial.