I cannot improve on the brilliant simplicity of the lead sentence in the Wall Street Journal’s article on the death earlier today of Milton Friedman:

Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman, one of the most influential economists of the last century, died today.

OpinionJournal chimes in with this fine tribute to Professor Friedman and the NY Times articles on Professor Friedman’s death are here and here, the latter of which is by Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economics professor. The Cato Institute also has posted this excellent online tribute to Professor Friedman from his 90th birthday, and the Hoover Institution’s news release on his death is here. The Financial Times’ excellent obituary is here, and Professor Friedman’s student, Thomas Sowell, has a heartfelt tribute here.
Professor Friedman’s writings are one of the primary reasons that I studied economics in undergraduate school and his wisdom and wit frequently blessed this blog over the past three years. Here are a few examples of Professor Friedman’s remarkable ability to communicate complex principles with engaging simplicity:

On the progress of free markets in the world after World War II:

“After World War II, opinion was socialist while practice was free market; currently, opinion is free market while practice is heavily socialist. We have largely won the battle of ideas (though no such battle is ever won permanently); we have succeeded in stalling the progress of socialism, but we have not succeeded in reversing its course. We are still far from bringing practice into conformity with opinion.”

On the fundamental problem with government spending:

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.
Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!
Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.”

Answering a couple of questions on Social Security:

Q: If Social Security is such a terrible program, why is it the most popular government program in American history?
Friedman: “Well, because why does a Ponzi game work? It’s easy to understand why it’s popular. So far, on the average, retirees have gotten more out of the system than they put into it. ”
Q: What about the fact that Social Security has reduced poverty among the elderly?
Friedman “Well, what it has done is transfer a lot of income from the young to the old. It is certainly true it has made the old people of the United States the best treated old people in the world.”
Q: But why is that a bad thing?
Friedman: “Oh, it’s not a bad thing for them, but what about the young?”

On rent controls and his influence in local political debates:

When Professor Friedman moved to San Francisco in the 1970’s, the city was debating rent control. So he wrote a letter to The San Francisco Chronicle declaring: “Anybody who has examined the evidence about the effects of rent control, and still votes for it, is either a knave or a fool.”
In a subsequent San Francisco Chronicle article, Professor Friedman was asked what happened after he sent his letter?
“They immediately passed it,” Friedman laughed.

On a key difference between private firms and government:

“[A] private firm that makes a serious blunder may go out of business. A government agency is likely to get a bigger budget.”

On competition from foreign companies that are subsidized by their government:

“Another source of “unfair competition” is said to be subsidies by foreign governments to their producers that enable them to sell in the United States below cost. Suppose a foreign government gives such subsidies, as no doubt some do. Who is hurt and who benefits? To pay for the subsidies the foreign government must tax its citizens. They are the ones who pay for the subsidies. US consumers benefit. They get cheap TV sets or automobiles or whatever is that is subsidized. Should we complain about such a program of reverse foreign aid?”

On government health care systems:

“Two major arguments are offered for introducing socialized medicine in the United States: first, that medical costs are beyond the means of most Americans; second, that socialization will somehow reduce costs. The second can be dismissed out of hand — at least until someone can find some example of an activity that is conducted more economically by government than by private enterprise. As to the first, the people of the country must pay their costs one way or another; the only question is whether they pay them directly on their own behalf, or indirectly through the mediation of government bureaucrats who will subtract a substantial slice for their own salaries and expenses.”

On the best protection for workers:

“The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided by the existence of many employers. As we have seen, a person who has only one possible employer has little or no protection. The employers who protect a worker are those who would like to hire him. Their demand for his services makes it in the self-interest of his own employer to pay him the full value of his work. If his own employer doesn’t, someone else may be ready to do so. Competition for his services — that is the worker’s real protection.”

On free markets and international relations:

“The great virtue of a free market is that it enables people who hate each other, or who are from vastly different religious or ethnic backgrounds, to cooperate economically. Government intervention canít do that. Politics exacerbates and magnifies differences.”

On conservative versus liberal economists:

“I never characterize myself as a conservative economist. As I understand the English language, conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don’t want to keep things as they are. The true conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government. The people who call themselves liberals today — the New Dealers — they are the true conservatives, because they want to keep going on the same path we’re going on. I would like to dismantle that. I call myself a liberal in the true sense of liberal, in the sense in which it means pertains to freedom.”

On evaluating governmental policies:

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions. The people who go around talking about their soft heart — I share their — I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well, because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.”

This OpinionJournal post also includes a number of Professor Friedman’s thoughts on a variety of issues.
Finally, when you have a few minutes, take a moment to watch this remarkable Open Mind video (other videos of Professor Friedman are here and here) from over 30 years ago of Professor Friedman discussing principles of economics and limited government. The entire video is about a half hour, but if you watch nothing else, take a moment to watch the beginning of the interview in which Professor Friedman brilliantly responds to a somewhat inflammatory opening question from the interviewer, who suggests that Professor Friedman lacks compassion for his fellow man. Professor Friedman calmly refuses to take the bait and turns the question around to question the motives of those who advocate the cure-all of government intervention.
Now, that’s an expert witness I would have liked to have put in front of any jury!