> During
> the Friedman-Heller debates in the '60s about the relative merits of
> fiscal and monetary policy as stabilization/growth devices (during the
> heady days when the neoclassicals thought govt policy could essentially
> eliminate the business cycle), Uncle Milty argued that fiscal policy was
> virtually impotent unless it was ratified by monetary policy.
That was central to his theory. There was a series of papers by Friedman & Meiselman.
> Deficits
> didn't produce expansion unless they were ratified by more money. More
> that that, he argued that stable growth could be achieved simply by
> establishing a constant rate of growth for the money supply (M1, no
> less, in those days). See, e.g., A Monetary History of the US, which
> he wrote with his wife.
No. With Anna Schwartz.
>
> So, yes, Friedman was primarily about monetary
> explanations, and blaming cycles on wrong policy choices in Washington,
> period. Because, he says, capitalism=freedom=nirvana for the human
> condition.
>
> Like most everything this man as ever written, his monetarism is a
> crock.
>
Yes. He has been shown to have cooked the books. Even colleagues like Harry Johnston and Don Patinkin called him a crook. See the series of papers by Leeson on this. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu