Friedman Under Attack

[impresso]

I don't know how many economists we have out there but I ran across this in todays Globe and Mail. It looks like the University of Chicago wants to name a new economics research facility after Friedman and there is extreme resistance to it.

link

More than 100 faculty at the University of Chicago, where Mr. Friedman won the 1976 Nobel Prize in economics, are trying to stop the university from putting Mr. Friedman's name on a $200-million (U.S.) research centre.

The institute, which will focus on economic research, has been in the works for more than a year and was officially unveiled last May. A few weeks later, about 100 professors signed a letter calling on the university to reconsider the project.

It surprises me as somebody who is currently studying Economics. I am not particularly well educated about a lot of Friedman's theories but I do know that he has provided a number important advances. Including his Monetary theories on the great depression, which are pretty widely accepted. His Monetary theory is particularly relevant to the current financial crisis.

Just want to know what others think. Like I said, I am not educated enough on Friedman's theories, past him being a champion of free markets, to have a well educated opinion on the matter. It doesn't strike me as a terrible thing naming an Economics research facility after one of the most important figures in modern economics. Especially considering Chicago University is synonymous with his ideals.

[Gozer]

Where's BORK! when you need him!?

[Cowboy89]

“He was the darling of the Reaganite revolution and the American right,” said Bruce Lincoln, a professor of the history of religions who is leading the charge against the institute. “He was a scathing critic of the state playing a role of any importance.” If the institute goes ahead, Prof. Lincoln said it will attract “a certain kind of donor who is a great cheerleader for Friedman's politics,” and that donor will try to “steer research in a direction that's going to advance the cause.”

I think your answer to the question of why there's so much opposition to Friedman is right there. It's not like it's the economists from the University of Chicago that are ones opposed to this, it's falculty from others diciplines who know jack s&*t about eocnomics (Ie the Naomi Klien Crowd) that are against this.

http://www.friedmanfacts.com/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think your answer to the question of why there's so much opposition to Friedman is right there. It's not like it's the economists from the University of Chicago that are ones opposed to this, it's falculty from others diciplines who know jack s&*t about eocnomics (Ie the Naomi Klien Crowd) that are against this.

http://www.friedmanfacts.com/

So one must be "trained" in economics to have an opinion on this? Or am I misunderstanding you. If that is in fact what you are alluding to, then, for example, no one who doesn't work in law enforcement should have an opinion on crime; only those who work in/studies homelessness should have an opinion; etc. I prefer to look at economics (or any subject matter) from a holistic perspective; so these objectors (whether right or wrong in their opinion) should have the chance to, well, object.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

So one must be "trained" in economics to have an opinion on this? Or am I misunderstanding you. If that is in fact what you are alluding to, then, for example, no one who doesn't work in law enforcement should have an opinion on crime; only those who work in/studies homelessness should have an opinion; etc...

Everybody's entitled to their opinions however the point of contention is economic theory. One would hope that professionals in the field should be held in higher regard on the subject. I don't see how I came across as saying he's not allowed an opinion.