|
Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition (平装)
by Milton Friedman
| Category:
Nonfiction |
| Market price: ¥ 148.00
MSL price:
¥ 138.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
Pre-order item, lead time 3-7 weeks upon payment [ COD term does not apply to pre-order items ] |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
| MSL Pointer Review:
A timeless classic that should be required reading for anyone interested in the American economic system. |
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
|
| |
AllReviews |
1 2   | Total 2 pages 11 items |
|
|
Lemas Mitchell (MSL quote), China
<2007-01-09 00:00>
This book is much better than Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek because Friedman offers more specific details and writes in a much lighter fashion. Though the reading is lighter than it was of the aforementioned Hayek book, it is still not all that light. The book, though only 200 pages, should probably be read at least twice - either by the chapters read and then reread before moving onto the next or by reading the whole thing all the way through twice.
Good points (not a complete listing):
1. Discussion of what keeps the number of physicians in the country artificially low as well as a discussion of how licensure requirments in any given profession can end up creating a defacto labor union.
2. Separation between what are the intended results of any given social program versus what actually happens when these ideas are put into practice. So, this could be the Housing and Urban Development board being responsible for the creation of ghettos--none of which existed before they were created. Or it could the creation of the Federal Reserve, which has a lot of power in the domestic economy, and therefore a lot more power to ruin something on a large scale.
3. Follow up of almost every single concept with specific examples to show what he is arguing
4. Extrapolation of certain arguments to their logical extreme. So, how is it different from 4 people walking along the street and one picking up a $20 bill and being forced to share it by the other three than redistibutive mechanisms imposed by the government on income? How does it make sense for the government to extract subsidies from taxpayers to support higher prices on agricultural products that its taxpayers are going to buy later?
5. Discussion of some of the logical consequences of pursuing "equal distribution of income" as well as some of the reasons that income/ wealth would be unequal no matter what any one does.
This book obviously influences a number of other writers that entered the discussion on Libertarianism (i.e., Thomas Sowell). It's also interesting to note that this book was written at the time when the Soviet Union was thought to still be a threat. The collapse of that Empire, almost 30 years after this book was written is its ultimate vindication.
Well worth the time it takes to read it! |
|
|
An American reader (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Friedman's critics and fellow travelers in the libertarian fold rightfully viewed Capitalism and Freedom as a landmark book in 1962. The author brilliantly, if albeit briefly, articulated his theories of human behavior, which stood in contrast to the prevailing Keynesian ideology. The book has stood the test of time, and has become a classic part of libertarian literature. Like Marx's Das Kapital, the book has become a common point of reference for review in many college courses for members of the Left and the Right.
Some quick notes. The book was not written as an exhaustive economics treatise that purported to evaluate every single possible component of economics. Friedman did not present every single ideological permutation's view of price supports for farm products, as an example. Anyone looking for Every Possible Libertarian Opinion on a Given Economic Question, much less the contrasting viewpoints of Marxists/Neo-Keynesians/Flat Earth Society proponents, will need to look elsewhere (Keynesian Paul Samuelson's classic work, "Economics", is recommended for as a starting point). Friedman's reputation in the economics profession was not earned from this book, but his other works, especially his Monetary History of the United States.
As for Paul Krugman's criticisms of Milton Friedman, the potential reader should heed the old axiom, "consider the source". Krugman is a brilliant economist, who after being exposed for decades to a mass of information on the failings of government meddling in the economy, persistently recommends a watered down version of the same failed policies that didn't work in the past. Interestingly enough, he belongs to that peculiar breed of economist who stridently defends "free" trade between nations, but somehow believes that individual entrepreneurs in a national economy require "guidance" from Big Brother (regulate, baby, regulate).
Krugman, like many economists of all political preferences, carefully chooses data that conforms to his preconceived opinions (monetarism under Thatcher and the early Volker years in the US), while excluding any information that might challenge his assumptions. Krugman fails to mention that in 1979, with 21% interest rates and 13.5% CPI in the US, his fellow Keynesians were recommending as a "cure" an increase in inflationary spending, higher marginal tax rates, and increased spending by the government. Some cure. Which is exactly why so many people anxiously embraced the monetarist creed at the time. Equally bogus is his claim that Volker's altered policies in the mid-1980s were a reversion to Keynesian monetary doctrine. Krugman's analysis of supply-side economics, which Friedman never supported, contains many of the same "ignore the facts" approach.
Final note. Many of the same economists who criticize Friedman for his lack of intellectual rigor slam Robert Lucas, another University of Chicago Nobel Prize Winner, for being too rigorous and dependent on advanced mathematical models that don't reflect the "real world." |
|
|
David Swan (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Although he never uses the term, Milton Friedman would probably be considered a libertarian with his view of a very limited Federal government. The main responsibilities of the Fed would be establishment and enforcement of laws, resolving property rights and maintaining the monetary system. Mr. Friedman considers himself a defender of `classical' liberalism which is essentially the liberalism of the 17th century that concerned itself with the distribution of power, protection of property rights and freedom of individuals.
As the heir apparent to Fredrick A. Hayek, Mr. Friedman takes up the battle against socialism, central planning and the concentration of power. Unlike his predecessor, however, Milton Friedman is extremely specific about the changes he would like to see in the way the U.S. government governs. He would like to see the elimination of rent control, minimum wage, the FCC, Social Security, most business regulations, tariffs on imports, public housing and national parks. Friedman was also an early proponent of school vouchers. In fact he goes so far as to call for the complete `denationalization' (privatization) of public education. The main thrust of Mr. Friedman's argument is that when the government attempts to solve social problems through central planning it invariably causes more problems than it solves, restricts individual freedoms and consolidating power in central planners.
There is an almost mystical reverence in this book for market forces and their ability, if left alone, to solve practically any social ill including racism. The problem is that Friedman presupposes that business will be forced to act in a rational and benevolent manner in order to maximize profits and survive in a competitive marketplace. Unfortunately this is often not the case. Businesses in the south were more than willing to forgo money offered by blacks. As a pro-business liberal Mr. Friedman sees regulations that force shops to hire blacks as unfair and damaging to those businesses that "[serve] a neighborhood inhabited by people who have a strong aversion to being waited on by a Negro clerk". However, Mr. Friedman's argument can be turned around as unfair and anti-capitalistic to blacks who offer their services and are denied based on race. This would apply to anyone barred from the marketplace, not just blacks.
Milton Friedman is so pro-business that he advocates a complete elimination of corporate taxes. In his mind business owes nothing to society and even says, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities to increase its profits". He then goes even further stating that, "Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible". Not only does Friedman encourage unbridled greed he makes it the number one corporate responsibility in order to protect "free society". Once a person accepts that the relentless pursuit of self interest is the best thing a person can do for society he or she can justify just about anything.
One part of the book that seems particularly dated is Friedman's claim that Capitalism reduces wealth disparity. In fact he holds up the United States as a model for wealth equality. If only this were true. He completely ignores the real and growing threat to freedom brought on by the concentration of wealth because he doesn't see it as a problem. The average voting age citizen is welcome to vote for whichever party they choose at which point the parties in power will adjust policy to the needs of wealthy donors. The Bush administration has turned this it into an art form. Friedman also expresses concern that, "a large fraction of the public scrimps in their productive years to provide themselves with a higher standard of living in old age than they ever enjoyed in the prime of life". Mr. Friedman should be pleased to know that 40+ years after the books publication a large percentage of American's have more debt than assets. |
|
|
Eric Walde (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
It is amazing how little has changed in our political dialogue in the 40+ years since this book was written. Friedman had chapters about social responsibility of business, taxes and incentives, free trade, vouchers and the role of government in the education system, and "fair" distributions of income, and trade protectionism to protect domestic industries and workers from "unfair foreign competition."
Friedman compellingly argues that capitalism is the best means of promoting freedom man has yet devised. He observes that "underlying most arguements against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." People who speak of failures of the market are generally actually referring to market outcomes that are inconsistent with their views of propriety.
He makes the telling point that politics forces conformity in decision making. Some form of majority decides issues, making that decision binding on all. Market forces "reduce strain on the social fabric by rendering conformity unecessary." It seems obvious then that the more decisions we leave to individuals, the more free we will be as a society.
I found it interesting that much that Friedman is criticized for is done on fallacious grounds. He very clearly sees a role for government. Government should do the things the market can not do for itself. The most important of which is enforce the rules of the game and adjudicate disputes over the interpretation of those rules. Further, government can be profitably involved when neighboorhood effects, or externalities are present. He rightly cautions against the continued extension of neighboorhood effects, often just an excuse for a group looking for a special dispensation.
He cautions us that one of the things we should fear most is the concentration of power. This is especially relevant today, given the continuing expansion of our Federal Government.
He makes the interesting point that high marginal tax rates are impediments to becoming wealthy rather than a tax on being wealthy. This is right on the money and may help to explain why Americans of all income groups are opposed to very high marginal tax rates on income groups above their own. This is something the left should take note of. I also found his point that very high tax rates caused the wealthy to be much more risk averse to be quite revealing. The wealthy of the time properly perceived that with high marginal tax rates the wealth they had was all the wealth they would ever have. When Washington took 91% of your marginal income the odds were low that you would ever recoup a significant capital loss. I don't think it is a coincidence that as those rates have dropped the American economy has grown faster and become the premier innovator and new business developer in the world.
Finally he has some interesting observations on the motivations of the egalitarians in society. He draws a great distinction between equality of rights and equality of outcome. The left insists on the latter, he feels the focus should be on the former. The conversion of the American intellectuals to communism/socialism has always puzzled me. How could people seemingly so intelligent espouse a system that has never been effective anywhere it has been tried. Friedman suggest that the "conversion of the intellectuals was achieved by a comparison between the existing state of affairs, with all its injustices and defects, and a HYPOTHETICAL state of affairs as it might be (emphasis mine). The actual was compared with the ideal." It now seems fairly well proven that the ideal is unattainable and also undesirable.
For those of a libertarian bent this will be a great read. For those of a collectivist bent but an open mind this is well worth the time and may change your mind just a bit. |
|
|
A Canadian reader (MSL quote), Canada
<2007-01-09 00:00>
As an economist, I'd like to offer a caution about Mr. Friedman, if I may. Mr. Friedman is one of the greatest economists, and certainly the pre-eminent living one. However, Mr. Friedman does have an agenda, and the economic theories he advocates most strongly are not houses built upon rock. In particular, they do not consistently agree with Keynesian theory. Keynes wasn't always right, but he did have an astonishing amount of predictive ability. The test of time weighs strongly in favor of Keynes and against Friedman. By all means read what he has to say, but please remember that his theories describe a special economic situation that is rather rare. Thanks. |
|
|
Rolf Dobelli (MSL quote), Switzerland
<2007-01-09 00:00>
This is a new edition of Milton Friedman's classic 1962 capitalist manifesto. As such, it was ignored, spurned and hated for decades by the intellectual, post-Keynesian establishment. In the 60s, Friedman once found himself debating a liberal who attacked him by simply reciting Friedman's views of the proper role of government. This was working rather well with the audience of college students until he quoted Friedman's opposition to the military draft. Friedman suddenly found himself awash in the unexpected cheers of students. Perhaps it was a foreshadowing of his career. Friedman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976, and his ideas gained some degree of mainstream acceptance in the Reagan years - although many of his thoughts remain controversial. To the extent that Friedman debunks myths about the Great Depression that are widely accepted as fact, perhaps he has a point about the semi-privatization of education. We strongly recommend this volume to those who seek a deeper understanding of government's role in a free-market economy. |
|
|
An American reader (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
An all-time favorite of mine, Capitalism & Freedom creates a framework of classic liberalism and argues forcefully in favor of free-markets and decentralization over the expansion of government involvement in economic and social affairs. Friedman builds his argument from the ground up by identifying coercion as the State's distinguishing feature over all other societal organizations. From the (classic) liberal's perspective, this aspect shapes the relationship between citizen and government, and strictly limits the appropriateness of State involvement in society, particularly with regard to well-intentioned programs and policy.
Friedman uses this foundation to build a case for limited government in economic matters, citing in particular the consequences of monetary and fiscal policy abuse. In an exceptionally apt comparison, Friedman argues that the same rationale that limits government interference with free speech should likewise apply to government interference in the economy: namely, that constraints be applied to monetary and fiscal policy to limit the potential for government to do harm in its pursuit of doing good. Friedman gives numerous examples in which government officials, exercising carte-blanche economic authority, have further aggravated economic crises by applying a case-by-case standardh to different economic scenarios.
Having clearly laid out his political philosophy, Friedman builds his case for free-markets, detailing control measures intrinsic of a laissez-faire economy. From floating exchange rates to voucher-funded schooling, union contracts to charity, Friedman argues that the free-market harnesses the productive potential of millions of individuals and corporations, reconciling their preferences in a competitive process far more efficiently than any collective body. Throughout the book, Friedman debunks popular myths, disputes misunderstandings, and challenges the conventional wisdom prevalent among intellectuals and social elites of his day and ours.
The book's only drawback is its age and somewhat antiquated writing style that would certainly make it difficult for some readers to fully understand (particularly those who are victims of public school "education"). Friedman references several examples that would have been more easily recognized in the 1960s, but will not be immediately familiar to younger readers. Still, this brilliant work presents the core principles of laissez-faire capitalism and classic liberalism in a relatively clear manner, and is a must-read for anyone studying the dynamics of free-markets and free societies. |
|
|
Craig Matteson (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
This is a foundation text that should be widely read and studied. Whether you agree with Friedman or not is not the point. These are ideas you need to actually consider and wrestle with. If you end up disagreeing with him and can state why, you will be the stronger for it. It is not enough to rail against them emotionally or call them lies. They are not lies; they are ideas and arguments that ask for debate. Personally, I have always been a fan of Friedman and am ever grateful that he stood against the tide of the postwar political movements with these powerful arguments for freedom.
People often caricature Friedman to their own discredit. His arguments here are not simply that government is bad, but that using government is often a poor way to get at a desirable social end. He certainly does not need me to speak for him, but if you think he is for huge corporations and letting the poor without help to fend for themselves, you misunderstand him and should read this work carefully. Big corporations, he argues several places in this book, are the result of taxation schemes that encourage the retention and reinvestment of earnings that would otherwise have gone to the shareholders to reinvest as they see fit - in other enterprises, consumption, or charity (as well as in taxes). This is only one example among many of popular prejudices against Friedman that do him real injustice.
The book is only a couple of hundred pages, is not hard to read, but does pay off the most dividends if you take your time reading it and consider what he has to say rather than jumping to conclusions without wrestling with your own thoughts (whether you agree with the author or not). It was written in 1962, so some of the context of the book will require some understanding on the part of the reader. It was a very different time than today. However, the arguments remain solid and strong to the benefit of anyone who will spend time thinking about why they agree or disagree with this Nobel Laureate.
Oh, and he uses the word LIBERAL for his philosophy and explains the word in it classic sense rather than in the modern US re-definition of the word. |
|
|
Denis Milev (MSL quote), Brazil
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Milton Friedman is one of the strongest proponents of freedom in society as the only way towards development (a concept later expanded by Amartya Sen). This book is not an economics textbook, since he does not spend much time on the basic concepts of economics such as price theory. He assumes a bit of knowledge and uses it to make the case for many different economic ideas ranging from macroeconomics (monetarism) to microeconomics (school vouchers).
For a book that was written in the 60s, it is amazing how current his ideas remain. It is perhaps the most important book on the libertarian philosophy, focusing on preventing the accumulation of power by any individual or group of individuals in society.
Overall, it is a great read for someone familiar with economics and social sciences, it will definitely expand your horizons of thought. However, if you are looking for an introduction to interesting eocnomic ideas, I would suggest you read Free to Choose, which Friedman wrote a dozen years later to reach a more general audience. |
|
|
Vincent Papa (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Milton Friedman, now approaching 94 has for his entire lifetime been the vanguard of freedom in academia. Capitalism and Freedom dispels the so-called myths about capitalism that have become prevalent in society. The book was orignally writeen in 1962 so that is the era in which his point are made. However, they are points that never go out of sytle. He refutes the lie that the free-market caused the depression (it was actually a tyrannical Federal Reserve), that socialism can be democratic, and others. Friedman discusses public education, roads, minimum wage laws (which he calls, "the most anti-black law on the books,"), as well as the how so-called "progressive" tax system and welfare actually hurt the poor.
Please understand that Friedman is NOT a "right-wing" extremist as some knucklehead below states. He is a libertarian. He developed the idea of the negative income tax to help the poor. His ideas were to help people not hurt them with the free-market. Someone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. |
|
|
|
1 2 | Total 2 pages 11 items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
