>thanks. haven't been able to find anything either. i'm guessing the
>person who said it is mistaken and that they are thinking of someone
>else?
>From the millions of words of notes for my amorphous
thesis-about-everything-and-nothing:
_________________
Milton Friedman, a member of the Mont Pelerin group of libertarian economists (von Hayek and von Mises were but two notable colleagues) had long argued for an end to fiscal policy. Until the 1970s, Friedman's many writings had found favour in some conservative quarters (Kemp on Capitol Hill and the American Enterprise Institute for two) but had failed to capture the public imagination. Mainstream economist Paul Krugman (1994: 40) avers,
"I think it is fair to say that up until the late 1960s Friedman and his followers, while influential, were regarded by many of their colleagues as faintly disreputable."
Edward Herman (1995: 36), from an admittedly more left-wing viewpoint, is less diplomatic:
"Friedman's methodology in attempting to prove his models have set a new standard in opportunism, manipulation, and the abuse of scientific method."
_________________
Other than some rather profound disagreements with Friedman's reading of the causes of the sustained post-1929 depression (and therefore the lessons he felt he'd learned about the evils of fiscal policy), I don't have the details to back any of that up, mind. If memory serves, Friedman's results didn't seem to do Chile any favours when he applied the consequent theory there though ...
Cheers, Rob