Longtime Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall's observations on developments in law, business, medicine, culture, sports, and other matters of general interest to the Houston business, professional, and academic communities.
It’s unfortunate that Mr. Friedman found it more
convenient to move the goal post, rather than give a direct response to the young Mr. Moore.
The Guardian had some choice words about M.F.,
including these:
“Even Friedman’s great admirer Alan Greenspan never tied himself to the monetarist mast, preferring to keep his options open.
Friedman also railed long and hard for school vouchers to be adopted, to little avail, and his libertarian leanings provoked him to call for recreational drugs and prostitution to be legalised. He lobbied against environmental protection and regulations of all kinds, the vast majority of which were happily ignored by his friends and enemies. Even the economic reforms in Pinochet’s Chile he is said to have inspired have run into trouble.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650
I don’t think Milton adequately responded to the young man’s point and summed up his position incorrectly. I’m a fan of Milton Friedman, but I would say that was one of his lesser moments. He was evasive like a politician.
Moreover, the young man had a valid point. How would you like it if your daughter died in a fiery crash and you found out Ford had deemed her death an acceptable statistical consequence of their design error?
I thought that the young man had a point but got caught up in trying to box Prof. Friedman into an answer. He wasn’t going to let that happen and changed the dynamics to put himself back in control. This is a great example for those trying to answer media questions. He was able to regain the pulpit in a nice and seemingly logical way, but not really answer the question.
In my mind the question should have been whether Ford was wrong in withholding information from the public that $13 could have made the car safer. Not doing so took the option away from the car owner of deciding to make it safer. That is where I think Prof. Friedman was going on principle and was clearly the company decision the questioner was upset about. I think both would support that more information is necessary in making economical choices (Prof. Friedman notes this when he brings up the smoking reference) and I would expect that Prof. Friedman would have agreed with the simple question of whether Ford was wrong to withhold that information from the public – rather than getting lose in the raw numbers.
A tiny percentage of Chileans probably miss him too.
It’s unfortunate that Mr. Friedman found it more
convenient to move the goal post, rather than give a direct response to the young Mr. Moore.
The Guardian had some choice words about M.F.,
including these:
“Even Friedman’s great admirer Alan Greenspan never tied himself to the monetarist mast, preferring to keep his options open.
Friedman also railed long and hard for school vouchers to be adopted, to little avail, and his libertarian leanings provoked him to call for recreational drugs and prostitution to be legalised. He lobbied against environmental protection and regulations of all kinds, the vast majority of which were happily ignored by his friends and enemies. Even the economic reforms in Pinochet’s Chile he is said to have inspired have run into trouble.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650
I don’t think Milton adequately responded to the young man’s point and summed up his position incorrectly. I’m a fan of Milton Friedman, but I would say that was one of his lesser moments. He was evasive like a politician.
Moreover, the young man had a valid point. How would you like it if your daughter died in a fiery crash and you found out Ford had deemed her death an acceptable statistical consequence of their design error?
I thought that the young man had a point but got caught up in trying to box Prof. Friedman into an answer. He wasn’t going to let that happen and changed the dynamics to put himself back in control. This is a great example for those trying to answer media questions. He was able to regain the pulpit in a nice and seemingly logical way, but not really answer the question.
In my mind the question should have been whether Ford was wrong in withholding information from the public that $13 could have made the car safer. Not doing so took the option away from the car owner of deciding to make it safer. That is where I think Prof. Friedman was going on principle and was clearly the company decision the questioner was upset about. I think both would support that more information is necessary in making economical choices (Prof. Friedman notes this when he brings up the smoking reference) and I would expect that Prof. Friedman would have agreed with the simple question of whether Ford was wrong to withhold that information from the public – rather than getting lose in the raw numbers.