Everyone should read this book irregardless of thier political views if only to understand the arguments of the other side. Economics can be dry but this book is written in a relaxed style that is much more accessible then F.A. Hayek's academic prose and so it serves as a great introduction to libertarian thought. The ideas Freedman communicates are profound and still very relevant to today's problems.

His explanation of the Federal Reserve's role in the Great Depressions is illuminating. Contrasting the Fed's actions in the 30's with the previous crisis's in 1907 and at the end of WW1, he makes a compelling case that monetary policy matters. In our troubled times it seems people have forgotten sound money is the key to stable economic growth and renewed prosperity. Freedman's policy proposals are passionately argued, particularly his advocacy of school choice and the financing of higher education through equity rather then debt. His proposal to replace the welfare bureaucracy with a Negative income tax sounds radical at first, but is so logically argued it will force even the most ardent bleeding heart to reconsider.

I don't really have much to say about Free to Choose. It's a good book, a little boring. Friedman raises some good points about the economics of the country and our government. The book is not for everyone. If you are interested in economics and governmental deficiencies you will find this book very interesting.

This book was written over 30 years ago and the events that led to many of the last economic downfalls, from the late 70's and early 30's, are again being repeated in the present. They are the very same mistakes of our previous generations and even foreign countries, yet we are so gracefully making them again. When will we learn from our history? When will we enter a new age of enlightenment? Its been numerous lifetimes in the making, and I fear not enough INDIVIDUALS read books like this one, to prevent such foolishness for repeating.

The Friedman's support of the free market has no peer in its depth and eloquence. Their anticipation of arguments in favor of school vouchers, for example, show that their unerring support of basic principles can bear fruit and that only our political institutions stand in the way of our implementing better policies. Wow.

This work is a masterpiece. It is still relevant today as it was some 30 years ago. Written by a nobel prize winner, a world renouned economist, a realist and above all a man of common sense. A strong man with strong views of life and how to live it to the full.
I was really impressed reading this book and I will read more of Milton Friedman.
As another viewer put it this is a life changing book.

Milton Friedman's basic argument is that it is better to let people spend their own money ("Free to Choose") rather than giving it to the government to spend for them. His implicit assumption, voiced in many different ways throughout the book, is that the relative size of private and state sectors depends on the political philosophy of voters: liberals prefer big government and conservatives prefer small. Political philosophy, in turn, is a reflection of basic moral values, which distort people's assessment of the material effects of the policies they espouse. Liberals prefer "social responsibility and a centralized and powerful government," while conservatives prefer "individual responsibility, laissez-faire, and a decentralized and limited government." (p. 92).

I do not believe that Friedman's stress on political ideology and moral values is correct. Political philosophies, be they left, right, or whatever, that give easy answer to all questions of social policy are generally bankrupt. This does not mean that middle-of-the-road policies that counsel the Aristotelian virtuous mean are more accurate. Rather, one-size-fits-all approaches to political, economic, and social issues are simply untenable. Not surprisingly, the average voter appears to have a rather more pragmatic approach to social policy, rewarding successful policies and their political proponents, and replacing ineffective political leaders, whatever their ideology.

The alternative to a one-size-fits-all approach to social policy is to recognize that for any given social problem, there will be a range, perhaps narrow, of effective solutions, and these are not likely to include unrestricted market competition or suffocating total control by a bureaucratic state. Indeed, in general, the question is what is the proper mix of decentrialized competition and centralized construction of the rules and regulations governing competition. This is not a moral issue and it does not depend on one's political ideology.

Friedman believes that big government creates economic inefficiencies, although he presents no statistics supporting his case. My own reading of the situation is that big government is an ineluctable part of economic growth (there is no advanced economy with a small state sector), but there is indeed a tendency for the size of government to exceed its most efficient and growth-promoting size. However, Friedman's distaste for government is clearly not its inefficiency, but rather its immorality, since it undermines the entrepreneurial, meritocratic, ethic of which Friedman approves. Indeed, I approve of this ethic as well, and I have a significant aversion to the "cradle to grave protection" ethic of most progressives (e.g., the French Socialists). However, I believe that the ability to compete successfully in modern society is an ideal that many people, for one reason or another, are incapable of attaining. These reasons include mental and physical incapacity, poor upbringing, inadequate social stimulation, and failure of will. Such people are as deserving of a decent life as anyone else, and Friedman's idea that such types would disappear were their social supports to be withdrawn is not in the least persuasive.

Friedman's free market pleading is not very persuasive in this book, in considerable part because it was written so long ago, and the issues have changed. He believes social security should be dismantled and individuals should set up their private savings plans. Of course, social security is a stunning success, and not even conservatives today want to dismantle it completely. Conservatives point to the financial problems with social security in the United States, but this is pretty lame critique of social value of the system.

The scientific arguments for social security are strong, especially given what we know about hyperbolic discounting (people tend to magnify the value of immediate gratification and underestimate the importance of the long-run) and the tendency of a fair fraction of the public to believe crazy theories of probability and finance (for instance, in the present situation, people saw others taking chances and making money, so reasonably enough, they followed along, leading to a stock market bubble).

Libertarians argue that the state has no business countermanding individual preferences (the heart of "free to choose"), but in fact, very often people recognize their own individual weaknesses and prefer that their choices be affected by social policy. For instance, even smokers prefer laws that reduce the incidence of smoking in society, and even savers prefer social security regulation to pure individual responsibility.

Friedman also argues against consumer protection laws and socially provided health insurance. These arguments are just silly and are not supported by most conservatives today. He says, for instance, "There will always be shoddy products, quacks, con artists. But on the whole, market competition, when it is permitted to work, protects the consumer better than do the alternative government mechanisms that have been increasingly superimposed on the market." (p. 222) I wonder how an intelligent student of the issues could hold such a totally misguided position.

Economists can point to models that show that reputation effects alone are sufficient to ensure the delivery of high-quality goods, but these models depend on highly specialized assumptions that hold only part of the time. The notion that airlines would provide an equal level of safety without FAA regulations and inspections is not plausible, and the same is true of most consumer goods, where at times heavily discounting the future is the firm's profit-maximizing choice.

In fact, every advanced economic system has very strong consumer protection laws, and the need for such laws follows from economic theory. Consumers have incomplete information concerning the quality of goods, and it is less costly for the government to provide oversight than having each individual do it for himself. Some claim that reputational effects are sufficient to have the market work well. However, experience shows that firm decision-makers will cut quality to make profits in the present because if profits are low, they will get the boot anyway. For instance, air safety has improved dramatically since the FAA increased safety requirements, and there have been plenty of violators who have be caught by the FAA.

Similarly, control of pharmaceuticals is sensible because individuals without the proper training do not know how to medicate themselves, and it is not economically feasible to subject every consumer to the educational requirements for the correct prescription of medications. Friedman is on firmer ground in advocating the legalization of recreational drugs. Most economists probably now accept something close to full legaization for adult consumers as socially optimal.

The free market case against universal health insurance, and in favor of private health insurance, is more solid. There is certainly no justification for the government delivering health services, and lots of competition in health care delivery is highly desirable. However, there appears to be a social ethic in favor of such a system being accesible to all (as, for instance, voting or education). Given that, it makes sense to have government-financed health care, although I think a state- rather than federally-based would operate better, because it allows competition among the states for the best system of financing health care.

The only policy positions Friedman offers that I think basically accurate are to replace the public school system with a voucher system, and to replace some public support for higher education with a system in which graduates pay for their education according to their future incomes.

The public school system is a real anomaly in our society, because it is a government-supplied service where there is effectively no competition at all. The group that benefits are school teachers and their unions (workers never want competition in their industry) and politicians who make a living on school boards. Voucher systems give parents a fixed amount of money and allow them to choose their children's schools, while the schools must be duly accredited by the government (as is the case in health care). Charter schools are wholly inferior as an operational concept, because it allows the government to place too many restrictions on what schools are permitted to do, almost predetermining their failure). Teachers' unions know this, so they "compromise" by allowing a few to exist.

I also agree with his hostility to promoting unions as a policy tool, although a case can be made that strong minimum wage laws are warranted and the government should promote mechanisms to enhance worker productivity (e.g., life-time apprenticeship programs). The problem with unions is that they are successful only in sectors that have monopoly power. In the current era, that means the state sector. The only exception is the automobile industry, where unions have crippled the ability of American firms to compete, to the point where both the firms and their unions are likely to go under in the next few years.

One of Friedman's most creative ideas was the negative income tax, which would allow the dismantling of the whole welfare bureaucracy (a great middle-class boondoggle), replacing social services by pure income support. The Clinton administration did implement the negative income tax, and it has been successful. However, it could only serve as an alternative to the welfare bureaucracy if the poor are "just like everyone else, except they have no money." This is not the fact. Long-term poverty is almost invariably associated with some form of personal disfunctionality, such as mental or physical disease, drug abuse, lack of parenting skills, etc., that require social service administration and control.

Friedman describes himself as a libertarian, not a conservative, I am told. I do not think there could be a person more able than Friedman to defend this position, and he does so ineffectively. The notion of free enterprise, virtually unfettered from government regulation, is simply not tenable.

Milton Friedman's basic argument is that it is better to let people spend their own money ("Free to Choose") rather than giving it to the government to spend for them. His implicit assumption, voiced in many different ways throughout the book, is that the relative size of private and state sectors depends on the political philosophy of voters: liberals prefer big government and conservatives prefer small. Political philosophy, in turn, is a reflection of basic moral values, which distort people's assessment of the material effects of the policies they espouse. Liberals prefer "social responsibility and a centralized and powerful government," while conservatives prefer "individual responsibility, laissez-faire, and a decentralized and limited government." (p. 92).

I would be very unhappy were Friedman's view to turn out to be correct. I do not think much of political philosophies, be they left, right, or whatever, that give easy answer to all questions of social policy. This does not mean that I prefer middle-of-the-road policies that counsel the Aristotelian virtuous mean. One-size-fits-all approaches to political, economic, and social issues is simply untenable. Gratifyingly, the average voter appears to have a rather more pragmatic approach to social policy, rewarding successful policies and their political proponents, and replacing ineffective political leaders, whatever their ideology.

The alternative to a one-size-fits-all approach to social policy is to recognize that for any given social problem, there will be a range, perhaps narrow, of effective solutions, and these are not likely to include unrestricted market competition or suffocating total control by a bureaucratic state. Indeed, in general, the question is what is the proper mix of decentrialized competition and centralized construction of the rules and regulations governing competition.

The great difficulty in dealing with political manifestos such as Friedman's is determining the extent to which they follow from ethical principles or material beliefs of how the world works. Perhaps the truth is that it is impossible to separate the two. Friedman believes that big government creates economic inefficiencies, although he presents no statistics supporting his case. My own reading of the situation is that big government is an ineluctable part of economic growth (there is no advanced economy with a small state sector), but there is indeed a tendency for the size of government to exceed its most efficient and growth-promoting size. However, Friedman's distaste for government is clearly not its inefficiency, but rather its immorality, since it undermines the entrepreneurial, meritocratic, ethic of which Friedman approves. Indeed, I approve of this ethic as well, and I have a significant aversion to the "cradle to grave protection" ethic of most progressives (e.g., the French Socialists). However, I believe that the ability to compete successfully in modern society is an ideal that many people, for one reason or another, are incapable of attaining. These reasons include mental and physical incapacity, poor upbringing, inadequate social stimulation, and failure of will. Such people are as deserving of a decent life as anyone else, and Friedman's idea that such types would disappear were their social supports to be withdrawn is not in the least persuasive. So, if people democratically choose the lassitude and immorality of the Daddy State, more power to them, say I. The entrepreneurial and meritocratic dissenters will flock to America, or India, or China, or wherever their skills and abilities are appropriately rewarded.

Friedman's free market pleading is not very persuasive in this book, in considerable part because it was written so long ago, and the issues have changed. He believes social security should be dismantled and individuals should set up their private savings plans. Of course, social security is a stunning success, and not even conservatives today want to dismantle it completely. Conservatives point to the financial problems with social security in the United States, but this is pretty lame critique of social value of the system.

The scientific arguments for social security are strong, especially given what we know about hyperbolic discounting (people tend to magnify the value of immediate gratification and underestimate the importance of the long-run) and the tendency of a fair fraction of the public to believe crazy theories of probability and finance (for instance, in the present situation, people saw others taking chances and making money, so reasonably enough, they followed along, leading to a stock market bubble).

Friedman also argues against consumer protection laws and socially provided health insurance. These arguments are just silly and are not supported by most conservatives today. He says, for instance, "There will always be shoddy products, quacks, con artists. But on the whole, market competition, when it is permitted to work, protects the consumer better than do the alternative government mechanisms that have been increasingly superimposed on the market." (p. 222) I wonder how an intelligent student of the issues could hold such a totally misguided position.

In fact, every advanced economic system has very strong consumer protection laws, and the need for such laws follows from economic theory. Consumers have incomplete information concerning the quality of goods, and it is less costly for the government to provide oversight than having each individual do it for himself. Some claim that reputational effects are sufficient to have the market work well. However, experience shows that firm decision-makers will cut quality to make profits in the present because if profits are low, they will get the boot anyway. For instance, air safety has improved dramatically since the FAA increased safety requirements, and there have been plenty of violators who have be caught by the FAA.

Similarly, control of pharmaceuticals is sensible because individuals without the proper training do not know how to medicate themselves, and it is not economically feasible to subject every consumer to the educational requirements for the correct prescription of medications. Friedman is on firmer ground in advocating the legalization of recreational drugs. Most economists probably now accept something close to full legaization for adult consumers as socially optimal.

The free market case against universal health insurance, and in favor of private health insurance, is more solid. There is certainly no justification for the government delivering health services, and lots of competition in health care delivery is highly desirable. However, there appears to be a social ethic in favor of such a system being accesible to all (as, for instance, voting or education). Given that, it makes sense to have government-financed health care, although I think a state- rather than federally-based would operate better, because it allows competition among the states for the best system of financing health care.

The only policy positions Friedman offers that I think basically accurate are to replace the public school system with a voucher system, and to replace some public support for higher education with a system in which graduates pay for their education according to their future incomes.

The public school system is a real anomaly in our society, because it is a government-supplied service where there is effectively no competition at all. The group that benefits are school teachers and their unions (workers never want competition in their industry) and politicians who make a living on school boards. Voucher systems give parents a fixed amount of money and allow them to choose their children's schools, while the schools must be duly accredited by the government (as is the case in health care). Charter schools are wholly inferior as an operational concept, because it allows the government to place too many restrictions on what schools are permitted to do, almost predetermining their failure). Teachers' unions know this, so they "compromise" by allowing a few to exist.

I also agree with his hostility to promoting unions as a policy tool, although a case can be made that strong minimum wage laws are warranted and the government should promote mechanisms to enhance worker productivity (e.g., life-time apprenticeship programs). The problem with unions is that they are successful only in sectors that have monopoly power. In the current era, that means the state sector. The only exception is the automobile industry, where unions have crippled the ability of American firms to compete, to the point where both the firms and their unions are likely to go under in the next few years.

One of Friedman's most creative ideas was the negative income tax, which would allow the dismantling of the whole welfare bureaucracy (a great middle-class boondoggle), replacing social services by pure income support. The Clinton administration did implement the negative income tax, and it has been successful. However, it could only serve as an alternative to the welfare bureaucracy if the poor are "just like everyone else, except they have no money." This is not the fact. Long-term poverty is almost invariably associated with some form of personal disfunctionality, such as mental or physical disease, drug abuse, lack of parenting skills, etc., that require social service administration and control.

Friedman describes himself as a libertarian, not a conservative, I am told. I do not think there could be a person more able than Friedman to defend this position, and he does so ineffectively. The notion of free enterprise, virtually unfettered from government regulation, is simply not tenable.

Milton Friedman's basic argument is that it is better to let people spend their own money ("Free to Choose") rather than giving it to the government to spend for them. His implicit assumption, voiced in many different ways throughout the book, is that the relative size of private and state sectors depends on the political philosophy of voters: liberals prefer big government and conservatives prefer small. Political philosophy, in turn, is a reflection of basic moral values, which distort people's assessment of the material effects of the policies they espouse. Liberals prefer "social responsibility and a centralized and powerful government," while conservatives prefer "individual responsibility, laissez-faire, and a decentralized and limited government." (p. 92).

I would be very unhappy were Friedman's view to turn out to be correct. I do not think much of people who have political philosophies, be they left, right, or whatever, that give them easy answer to all questions of social policy. This does not mean that I prefer middle-of-the-roaders, who wisely counsel the Aristotelian virtuous mean. I am equally frustrated by these types as well. In short I think that canned, one-size-fits-all, opinions on all political, economic, social issues is intellectually sloppy. Gratifyingly, the average voter appears to have a rather more pragmatic approach to social policy, rewarding successful policies and their political proponents, and replacing ineffective political leaders, whatever their ideology.

Mostly, I have trouble with political ideologues because they are almost invariably hypocrites, and either lacking intelligence or good judgment. A free-market conservative like Friedman was a hypocrite lacking in goods judgment for supporting the military dictatorship in Chile that overthrew a democratically elected left-wing government and gave the term "desaparicido" a new political meaning. Commenting on the Pinochet regime, conservative economist and guru Friedrich von Hayek once remarked, "My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." He got his wish in the good liberal enforcer, Pinochet, who dropped Hayek's enemies from planes into the Atlantic deep. Even today, conservatives who revere Milton Friedman are in bed politically with ignorant (Intelligent Design), intolerant (ban gay marriage), and bigoted (the true children of God) religious fundamentalists. Liberals are no better. For much of the Twentieth Century they formed an unholy alliance with American Southern racists, defended dictators who mouthed progressive trivialities, and now are simply an alliance of special interest groups (especially the unions and the lawyers) who are quite lacking in political principles. If I hear once more about the poor, oppressed, middle class I will lose my lunch.

The great difficulty in dealing with political manifestos such as Friedman's is determining the extent to which they follow from ethical principles or material beliefs of how the world works. Perhaps the truth is that it is impossible to separate the two. Friedman believes that big government creates economic inefficiencies, although he presents no statistics supporting his case. My own reading of the situation is that big government is an ineluctable part of economic growth (there is no advanced economy with a small state sector), but there is indeed a tendency for the size of government to exceed its most efficient and growth-promoting size. However, Friedman's distaste for government is clearly not its inefficiency, but rather its immorality, since it undermines the entrepreneurial, meritocratic, ethic of which Friedman approves. Indeed, I approve of this ethic as well, and I have a significant aversion to the "cradle to grave protection" ethic of most progressives (e.g., the French Socialists). However, I believe that the ability to compete successfully in modern society is an ideal that many people, for one reason or another, are incapable of attaining. These reasons include mental and physical incapacity, poor upbringing, inadequate social stimulation, and failure of will. Such people are as deserving of a decent life as anyone else, and Friedman's idea that such types would disappear were their social supports to be withdrawn is not in the least persuasive. So, if people democratically choose the lassitude and immorality of the Daddy State, more power to them, say I. The entrepreneurial and meritocratic dissenters will flock to America, or India, or China, or wherever their skills and abilities are appropriately rewarded.

Friedman's conservative pleading is not very persuasive in this book, in considerable part because it was written so long ago, and the issues have changed. He believes social security should be dismantled and individuals should set up their private savings plans. Of course, social security is a stunning success, and not even conservatives today want to dismantle it completely. The scientific arguments for social security are strong, especially given what we know about hyperbolic discounting and the tendency of a fair fraction of the public to believe crazy theories of probability and finance. Friedman also argues against consumer protection laws and socially provided health insurance. These arguments are just silly and are not supported by most conservatives today. He says, for instance, "There will always be shoddy products, quacks, con artists. But on the whole, market competition, when it is permitted to work, protects the consumer better than do the alternative government mechanisms that have been increasingly superimposed on the market." (p. 222) I wonder how an intelligent student of the issues could hold such a totally misguided position.

The only policy positions Friedman offers that I think basically accurate are to replace the public school system with a voucher system, and to replace some public support for higher education with a system in which graduates pay for their education according to their future incomes. I also agree with his hostility to promoting unions as a policy tool, although a case can be made that strong minimum wage laws are warranted and the government should promote mechanisms to enhance worker productivity (e.g., life-time apprenticeship programs).

One of Friedman's most creative ideas was the negative income tax, which would allow the dismantling of the whole welfare bureaucracy (a great middle-class boondoggle), replacing social services by pure income support. The Clinton administration did implement the negative income tax, and it has been successful. However, it could only serve as an alternative to the welfare bureaucracy if the poor are "just like everyone else, except they have no money." This is not the fact. Long-term poverty is almost invariably associated with some form of personal disfunctionality, such as mental or physical disease, drug abuse, lack of parenting skills, etc., that require social service administration and control.

I would like to see an intelligent defense of conservative political philosophy. This is not it.

Milton Friedman's basic argument is that it is better to let people spend their own money ("Free to Choose") rather than giving it to the government to spend for them. His implicit assumption, voiced in many different ways throughout the book, is that the relative size of private and state sectors depends on the political philosophy of voters: liberals prefer big government and conservatives prefer small. Political philosophy, in turn, is a reflection of basic moral values, which distort people's assessment of the material effects of the policies they espouse. Liberals prefer "social responsibility and a centralized and powerful government," while conservatives prefer "individual responsibility, laissez-faire, and a decentralized and limited government." (p. 92).

I would be very unhappy were Friedman's view to turn out to be correct. I do not think much of people who have political philosophies, be they left, right, or whatever, that give them easy answer to all questions of social policy. This does not mean that I prefer middle-of-the-roaders, who wisely counsel the Aristotelian virtuous mean. I am equally frustrated by these types as well. In short I think that canned, one-size-fits-all, opinions on all political, economic, social issues is intellectually sloppy.

Mostly, I have trouble with political ideologues because they are almost invariably hypocrites, and either lacking intelligence or good judgment. A free-market conservative like Friedman was a hypocrite lacking in goods judgment for supporting the military dictatorship in Chile that overthrew a democratically elected left-wing government and gave the term "desaparicido" a new political meaning. Commenting on the Pinochet regime, conservative economist and guru Friedrich von Hayek once remarked, "My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." He got his wish in the good liberal enforcer, Pinochet, who dropped Hayek's enemies from planes into the Atlantic deep. Even today, conservatives who revere Milton Friedman are in bed politically with ignorant (Intelligent Design), intolerant (ban gay marriage), and bigoted (the true children of God) religious fundamentalists. Liberals are no better. For much of the Twentieth Century they formed an unholy alliance with American Southern racists, defended dictators who mouthed progressive trivialities, and now are simply an alliance of special interest groups (especially the unions and the lawyers) who are quite lacking in political principles. If I hear once more about the poor, oppressed, middle class I will lose my lunch.

The great difficulty in dealing with political manifestos such as Friedman's is determining the extent to which they follow from ethical principles or material beliefs of how the world works. Perhaps the truth is that it is impossible to separate the two. Friedman believes that big government creates economic inefficiencies, although he presents no statistics supporting his case. My own reading of the situation is that big government is an ineluctable part of economic growth (there is no advanced economy with a small state sector), but there is indeed a tendency for the size of government to exceed its most efficient and growth-promoting size. However, Friedman's distaste for government is clearly not its inefficiency, but rather its immorality, since it undermines the entrepreneurial, meritocratic, ethic of which Friedman approves. Indeed, I approve of this ethic as well, and I have a significant aversion to the "cradle to grave protection" ethic of most progressives (e.g., the French Socialists). However, I believe that the ability to compete successfully in modern society is an ideal that many people, for one reason or another, are incapable of attaining. These reasons include mental and physical incapacity, poor upbringing, inadequate social stimulation, and failure of will. Such people are as deserving of a decent life as anyone else, and Friedman's idea that such types would disappear were their social supports to be withdrawn is not in the least persuasive. So, if people democratically choose the lassitude and immorality of the Daddy State, more power to them, say I. The entrepreneurial and meritocratic dissenters will flock to America, or India, or China, or wherever their skills and abilities are appropriately rewarded.

Friedman's conservative pleading is not very persuasive in this book, in considerable part because it was written so long ago, and the issues have changed. He believes social security should be dismantled and individuals should set up their private savings plans. Of course, social security is a stunning success, and not even conservatives today want to dismantle it completely. The scientific arguments for social security are strong, especially given what we know about hyperbolic discounting and the tendency of a fair fraction of the public to believe crazy theories of probability and finance. Friedman also argues against consumer protection laws and socially provided health insurance. These arguments are just silly and are not supported by most conservatives today. He says, for instance, "There will always be shoddy products, quacks, con artists. But on the whole, market competition, when it is permitted to work, protects the consumer better than do the alternative government mechanisms that have been increasingly superimposed on the market." (p. 222) I wonder how an intelligent student of the issues could hold such a totally misguided position.

The only policy positions Friedman offers that I think basically accurate are to replace the public school system with a voucher system, and to replace some public support for higher education with a system in which graduates pay for their education according to their future incomes. I also agree with his hostility to promoting unions as a policy tool, although a case can be made that strong minimum wage laws are warranted and the government should promote mechanisms to enhance worker productivity (e.g., life-time apprenticeship programs).

One of Friedman's most creative ideas was the negative income tax, which would allow the dismantling of the whole welfare bureaucracy (a great middle-class boondoggle), replacing social services by pure income support. The Clinton administration did implement the negative income tax, and it has been successful. However, it could only serve as an alternative to the welfare bureaucracy if the poor are "just like everyone else, except they have no money." This is not the fact. Long-term poverty is almost invariably associated with some form of personal disfunctionality, such as mental or physical disease, drug abuse, lack of parenting skills, etc., that require social service administration and control.

I would like to see an intelligent defense of conservative political philosophy. This is not it.

Milton Friedman's basic argument is that it is better to let people spend their own money ("Free to Choose") rather than giving it to the government to spend for them. His implicit assumption, voiced in many different ways throughout the book, is that the relative size of private and state sectors depends on the political philosophy of voters: liberals prefer big government and conservatives prefer small. Political philosophy, in turn, is a reflection of basic moral values, which distort people's assessment of the material effects of the policies they espouse. Liberals prefer "social responsibility and a centralized and powerful government," while conservatives prefer "individual responsibility, laissez-faire, and a decentralized and limited government." (p. 92).

I would be very unhappy were Friedman's view to turn out to be correct. I basically despise people who have overblown political philosophies, be they left, right, or whatever. This does not mean that I prefer middle-of-the-roaders, who wisely counsel the Aristotelian virtuous mean. I have equal, and very deep, contempt for these types as well. You may think that I am a deeply opinionated person. I am not. I do not, for instance, despise serial killers, welfare cheats, crooked CEO's or petty dictators--just people with political philosophies that give them canned, one-size-fits-all, opinions on all political, economic, social issues.

Mostly, I do not like such people because they are invariable hypocrites, and either lacking intelligence or good judgment. A free-market conservative like Friedman was a hypocrite lacking in goods judgment for supporting the military dictatorship in Chile that overthrew a democratically elected left-wing government and gave the term "desaparicido" a new political meaning. Commenting on the Pinochet regime, conservative economist and guru Friedrich von Hayek once remarked, "My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." He got his wish in the good liberal enforcer, Pinochet, who dropped Hayek's enemies from planes into the Atlantic deep. Even today, conservatives who revere Milton Friedman are in bed politically with ignorant (Intelligent Design), intolerant (ban gay marriage), and bigoted (the true children of God) religious fundamentalists. Liberals are no better. For much of the Twentieth Century they formed an unholy alliance with American Southern racists, defended dictators who mouthed progressive trivialities, and now are simply an alliance of special interest groups (especially the unions and the lawyers) who are quite lacking in political principles. If I hear once more about the poor, oppressed, middle class I will lose my lunch.

The great difficulty in dealing with political manifestos such as Friedman's is determining the extent to which they follow from ethical principles or material beliefs of how the world works. Perhaps the truth is that it is impossible to separate the two. Friedman believes that big government creates economic inefficiencies, although he presents no statistics supporting his case. My own reading of the situation is that big government is an ineluctable part of economic growth (there is no advanced economy with a small state sector), but there is indeed a tendency for the size of government to exceed its most efficient and growth-promoting size. However, Friedman's distaste for government is clearly not its inefficiency, but rather its immorality, since it undermines the entrepreneurial, meritocratic, ethic of which Friedman approves. Indeed, I approve of this ethic as well, and I have a significant aversion to the "cradle to grave protection" ethic of most progressives (e.g., the French Socialists). However, I believe that the ability to compete successfully in modern society is an ideal that many people, for one reason or another, are incapable of attaining. These reasons include mental and physical incapacity, poor upbringing, inadequate social stimulation, and failure of will. Such people are as deserving of a decent life as anyone else, and Friedman's idea that such types would disappear were their social supports to be withdrawn is not in the least persuasive. So, if people democratically choose the lassitude and immorality of the Daddy State, more power to them, say I. The entrepreneurial and meritocratic dissenters will flock to America, or India, or China, or wherever their skills and abilities are appropriately rewarded.

Friedman's conservative pleading is not very persuasive in this book, in considerable part because it was written so long ago, and the issues have changed. He believes social security should be dismantled and individuals should set up their private savings plans. Of course, social security is a stunning success, and not even conservatives today want to dismantle it completely. The scientific arguments for social security are strong, especially given what we know about hyperbolic discounting and the tendency of a fair fraction of the public to believe crazy theories of probability and finance. Friedman also argues against consumer protection laws and socially provided health insurance. These arguments are just silly and are not supported by most conservatives today. He says, for instance, "There will always be shoddy products, quacks, con artists. But on the whole, market competition, when it is permitted to work, protects the consumer better than do the alternative government mechanisms that have been increasingly superimposed on the market." (p. 222) I wonder how an intelligent student of the issues could hold such a totally misguided position.

The only policy positions Friedman offers that I think basically accurate are to replace the public school system with a voucher system, and to replace some public support for higher education with a system in which graduates pay for their education according to their future incomes. I also agree with his hostility to promoting unions as a policy tool, although a case can be made that strong minimum wage laws are warranted and the government should promote mechanisms to enhance worker productivity (e.g., life-time apprenticeship programs).

One of Friedman's most creative ideas was the negative income tax, which would allow the dismantling of the whole welfare bureaucracy (a great middle-class boondoggle), replacing social services by pure income support. The Clinton administration did implement the negative income tax, and it has been successful. However, it could only serve as an alternative to the welfare bureaucracy if the poor are "just like everyone else, except they have no money." This is not the fact. Long-term poverty is almost invariably associated with some form of personal disfunctionality, such as mental or physical disease, drug abuse, lack of parenting skills, etc., that require social service administration and control.

I would like to see an intelligent defense of conservative political philosophy. This is not it.

When it comes to the normative issue of the proper size and scope of government, there are many schools of thought. Some Jews think MORE is better (e.g., Karl Marx), and some Jews think LESS is better (e.g., Milton Friedman).

If you want to get a handle on Milton Friedman's thinking, this is your tome. This is where he and his wife and writing partner Rose lay their lifetime of study and reflection out on the line. Agree or disagree with the fundamental contention (that government intervention is necessarily bad and freedom-curtailing), one thing is certain: Friedman is a rigorous, precise thinker who makes a very persuasive case utilizing data and historical examples. His brief is compelling and not capable of being easily dismissed.

I take Friedman's proposition that "less government is more" as axiomatic, so I enjoyed having my prejudice reinforced by a first-rate intellectual analysis. If you're a fan of Naomi Klein (to pick an au courant gubmint-lovin' Jew) and her ilk, you probably won't be sympathetic to Friedman's point of view...but I'll own that reading this book WILL be a salutary experience. Knowing how the other side thinks is indispensable to sharpening up your own value judgments. (If you REALLY have an open mind, you might just come away with a different perspective.)

The book is well-written and targeted for the layman...but some grounding of economic theory is crucial if you're going to actually finish it. This ain't "Libertarianism for Dummies"...that thinking cap of yours will need to be retrieved from the attic and firmly affixed. That said, none of the ideas are so recondite or theoretical as to be beyond your grasp. Some passages will have to be studied carefully, but the gist is always apparent.

I recommend this book sans caveat...it is truly an edifying three hundred pages. Five out of five pencils...

Warning: Thinking required.

Informative and thought provoking. Whatever your political loyalties, excellent book.

Should be required reading for every junior high to high school student.

Though even the man himself began to rethink some of his beliefs due to circumstance, Milton Friedman should be read simply because his ideas still hold much weight in economic circles. Also, it is unprogressive to believe that people should not refine their ideas with time. Ultimately, as I have stated in the responses to this review, this book lays out the general philosophy of Friedman, mainly evoked as tenets of modern libertarianism. I am in severe disagreement with the majority of these views: I believe people's freedoms are protected just as much as they are taken away by government agencies and policies...I believe we owe much of our current prosperity to the dissemination of major breakthroughs that have been accomplished with more, not less, centralization and planning....I believe that antagonisms constantly push the system away from a state of equilibrium....I believe that capital accumulation indefinitely leads to inproportionate shares of market power, be it state sponsored or not...I do not believe the velocity of capital is constant...I believe crises are the assertion of the unity of independent phases of the production process...I believe ideals such as "freedom" or liberty" are not guaranteed in any system in anarchy or order...I do believe that the further from anarchy we move, the more "freedom" we must sacrifice. However, I reject the conclusion that this is necessarily an unwelcome event. If any of my beliefs are opposite of yours, this book will definitely reinforce you. If your beliefs are in line with the majority of mine, this book may challenge you.

So, though I find his ideas quite absurd in practicality, and therefore rate this a 1, that does not imply that he is wholly incorrect or that you should take me on faith. Only you can determine this, and only by analysis. So read, compare, and evaluate.
**For comparative analysis try pitting this against Stiglitz or Galbraith, to name a few more accessible writers. I also recommend Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States against Kindleberger's The World in Depression, 1929-1939. Good luck.

Though even the man himself began to rethink some of his beliefs due to circumstance, Milton Friedman should be read. It is unprogressive to believe that people should not refine their ideas with time. I find his ideas preposterous, and that is why I rate this a 1, but that does not imply that he is wholly incorrect or that you should take me on faith. Only you can determine this, and only by analysis. So read, compare, and evaluate.
**For comparative analysis try pitting this against Stiglitz or Galbraith, to name a few more accessible writers. I also recommend Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States against Kindleberger's The World in Depression, 1929-1939. Good luck.

"The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I'm not sure that I would as of today push it as hard as I once did."
-Milton Friedman. The Financial Times. June, 2003

Though even the man himself began to rethink his beliefs do to circumstance, Milton Friedman should be read. I find his ideas preposterous, and that is why I rate this a 1, but that does not imply that he is wholly incorrect. Only you can determine this, and only by analysis. So read, compare, and evaluate. Ultimately, compared to Mises and Hayek, I think Friedman is great..his arguments are framed much better and he doesn't contradict himself every few minutes, just every other (= . Try pitting this against Stiglitz or Galbraith, to name a few more accessible writers. I also recommend A Monetary History of the United States against Kindleberger's The World in Depression, 1929-1939.

"The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I'm not sure that I would as of today push it as hard as I once did."
-Milton Friedman. The Financial Times. June, 2003

The sad part is, half of you who gave this 5 stars will not even understand what the implications of this posted sentence are.

This is an excellent book about the Free Market, and how people are free to choose their own path in life. Milton Freidman was one of the best economic thinkers of our time and will be sorely missed by those who believe in the free market.
Friedman discusses how socialist societies eventually fail and the people that are stuck in those societies are not free to choose their own path in life.
Capitalism may not be perfect, but it is much better than societies that are run by a centralized governement.

This is absolutely the best book on basic economic thinking. It is filled with sound logical arguments for free markets. This book should be the starting point for anyone interested in politics and politically economy.

Milton Friedman is "way out there" for many, but his debating skills are solid. I used arguments in this book during debates in grad school and easily hammered classmates who couldn't figure out how to argue against the "green pieces of paper" statement when they were arguing on how the U.S. should eliminate our trade deficit.

In this book Dr. Friedman will teach you what free market capitalism is and is not. He will demonstrate how government regulation failures lead to the Great Depression and how monetary shocks (kicked off by the government yet again) created problems in the early 70s. Dr. Friedman will make his case for school choice and discuss why regulation harms consumers.

This book covers nearly all the most basic angles of economics you will hear about in your local newspaper and on tv. Reading this book should give you enough working knowledge to be prepared to debate or discuss economic topics with others.

Milton offers you the tools and answers to hammer most any local socialist. His writing is clear and his arguments are easy to understand. I recommend this book to any person wanting to learn more about free market capitalism.

This is absolutely the best book on basic economic thinking. It is filled with sound logical arguments for free markets. This book should be the starting point for anyone interested in politics and politically economy.

Milton Friedman is "way out there" for many, but his debating skills are solid. I used arguments in this book during debates in grad school and easily hammered classmates who couldn't figure out how to argue against the "green pieces of paper" statement when they were arguing on how the U.S. should eliminate our trade deficit.

Milton offers you the tools and answers to hammer most any college socialist.

Dr. Friedman is plainly an educated and articulate man and his arguments have a seductive veneer of logic to them. The tragedy is that his interpretations are extremely selective: he focuses exclusively on what he perceives to be the strengths of the free market, while completely disregarding its costs. In this respect, he shares the mentality of the fundamentalist. Anything that ever goes well, he attributes to the free market; anything that ever goes wrong, he dismisses as either an aberation, a reflection of inadequate adherence to his core belief system. He has thus created a logical closed loop, which admits no possibility of his starting assumptions being flawed.

Which is highly unfortunate, as he makes a great many assumptions, such as costless mobility of labor, perfect information, and the eventual trickle down of wealth, which are empirically unsound. If a worker loses his or her job, Dr. Friedman assumes that, somehow, that person will be able to find a bigger and better job elsewhere. How? Where? How is that person going to find the wherewithal to pay for the additional training and/or education needed for that real or imaginary bigger and better job? How will s/he pay for rent, food, transportation, health insurance, childcare, etc., while looking for this bigger and better job? Such trifles are plainly not Dr. Friedman's problem; nevertheless, they do pose a whopper of a problem if you're the person who's lost your job.

Likewise, Dr. Friedman simply takes it for granted that companies will behave honorably, will have access to perfect information, and consumers will never be misled or swindled, but will unfailingly shape the market based upon sound decisions. Wow. Must be a nice planet Dr. Friedman lives on. On this planet, companies make rash and/or unethical decisions on a daily basis which are based upon poor information and/or immediate short term gains, for which the general public bears the cost.

Because Dr. Friedman ignores such inconvenient realities, he views the world through rose-colored lenses and is blind to the dismal performance of his ideas whenever they have been implemented as policies. In every instance around the globe, the inevitable result of Friedman's radical ideology has been a tiny handful of predatory capitalists becoming richer than kings while the rest of the country sinks into abject poverty. Dr. Friedman's ideas, in every instance where they have been applied, from Chile to Argentina to Russia to Poland to South Africa to SE Asia - the list goes on - have unfailingly produced huge surges in unemployment and poverty, wholesale selloffs of the country's natural resources and other assets, and, of course, the adoption of repressive measures by governent to force the unpopular policies upon the unwilling populations. How ironic that Dr. Friedman describes himself as an advocate of free choice, when he has personally advised governments around the world to coerce their citizens into accepting his disasterous economic "reform" programs. Not surprisingly, Dr. Friedman doesn't wish to discuss the victims of his ideas, or, insofar as he recognizes them at all, he condescendingly dismisses them as the tragic cost of "progress." Progress for whom? Again, Dr. Friedman doesn't concern himself with such details.

The central flaw in Dr. Friedman's ideology is that he takes no account of wealth distribution. If an economy increases in efficiency, Dr. Friedman claims vindication. But if the benefits of any such increase go exclusively to a tiny minority while the vast majority of the population experiences a sharp reducation in quality of life, how has any overall increase in efficiency improved matters? Dr. Friedman seems to assume that the billionaires his policies create will reinvest their wealth into their local economies. Yet, empirically, we find once again that such is not the case. Billionaires invest their wealth where they can gain the greatest return on their investment. Why then would they want to invest in their own countries? The people who live there, thanks to them and Dr. Friedman, are unemployed and too poor to be able to afford to buy anything. The country's natural resources have already been privatized and sold off, what's left in the smoldering husk Dr. Friedman leaves behind to entice investment?

In sum, what Dr. Friedman describes as freedom of choice is an attempt to legitimize and apply a palatable facade to a wild west approach to economics, in the which the strongest and most ruthless rise at the expense of the weak, a kind of economic Darwinism. It's not without logic, but the cold, cruel, heartless world Dr. Friedman has to offer is a pretty terrifying place.

Arguably Friedman's magnus opus, Free to Choose is a book that will radically change the reader's way of thinking. Admittedly, before reading this book I would have been proud to vilify the free market. Like so many others, I fell victim to the demagogues. Free to Choose revolutionized my ideas about the role of government, and how intervention is inherently inefficient. Frieman's ideas are undoubtedly controversial, but Friedman himself was no polemicist. He would look down upon today's radio scum, like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. In fact, Friedman would look down upon most modern conservatives. He proudly acknowledged that he was in fact liberal (in the term's classical usage).

Free to Choose brilliantly reveals how over-regulation, astronomically high spending, and an ever-growing bureaucracy have impeded freedom. In the chapter "Created Equal", Friedman summarizes his entire set of ideas in a few words. He says that today many are pursuing "equality of outcome" rather than what the Founding Fathers pursued - "equality of opportunity."

A more essential guide for those of conservative and libertarian leanings I can't think of.

Friedman, in his traditionally accessible, though brilliant, way elucidates economics, politics, and freedom in a timeless classic.

Would buy again and again.

The relationship between freedom and economics is undeniable. Also undeniable is the relationship between government and freedom. Milton Friedman brilliantly makes a clear persuasive case for the perpetuation of free markets and the elimination of big government, as a means of augmenting freedom worldwide and as a result expand prosperity. Although this book is over 27 years old, the economic principles of this book are as timeless as Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".

The book covers topics, such as socialized medicine, which is even more popular today, due in large part to the propaganda promulgated by the sensationalist media circuits. Of course, Americans do not want socialized medicine so proponents are euphemistically calling it "universal healthcare". Mr. Friedman expressed that "in our opinion there is no use whatsoever for socialized medicine. On the contrary, government already plays too large a role in medical care. Any further expansion of its role would very much against the interest of patients, physicians, and health care personnel." This book was written almost 3 decades ago when the expenditure of healthcare was huge, however, not as appalling as it is now at close to 15% of the country's GDP. There are many factors involved in the rising healthcare costs, not the least of which is the government's inability to operate any activity cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector. There are no exceptions to this. None! Unfortunately, the tendency of government is to increase funding for programs that don't work. If it isn't working, then it must mean it needs more funding, is the philosophy of government. This clearly goes counter to the much more efficient private sector where costs are controlled in order to attain a dirty little concept called profits. It is in the self-interest of people and companies and not their benevolence, that most of the freedom and economic progress is dependent upon, according to Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.

Mr. Friedman was a radical free trade crusader and the evidence espoused in this book is overwhelmingly effective at convincing most open-minded individuals. Friedman goes on to write "Wherever we find any large element of individual freedom, some measure of progress in the material comforts at the disposal of ordinary citizens, and widespread hope of further progress in the future, there we also find that market activity is organized mainly through the free market." He goes on to warn us that "Wherever the state undertakes to control in detail the economic activities of its citizens, wherever, that is, detailed central economic planning reigns, there ordinary citizens are in political fetters, have a low standard of living, and have little power to control their own destiny." He further declares that under such governments impressive monuments may be produced and a certain class may enjoy a full measure of material goods, however, ordinary citizens will become merely "instruments to be used for the state's purpose" and will receive only what is "necessary to keep them docile and reasonably productive."

Friedman also covers topics on education, consumer protection, inflation, unions and what he believed, at that time, was a "turning of the tide" into a more free market based mentality by the general population. This period, however, was when Carter was still in office and Reagan was coming in with his message of small government and as a result reduction in taxes. I'm afraid that we are again seeing a turning of the tide, this time, unfortunately, we are headed into larger government and more social programs, due in large part to the short memory of the American public of what communism used to be and the continual romanticizing of socialist countries that provide its population with cradle to grave social programs, almost always at the expense of freedom and progress. We must be careful!

This book is a must-read to gain a fundamental understanding of economics, and as a reminder of the basic economic principles that have made America great. Enjoy!

Friedman was a genius. He was also the most articulate and fearless advovate for freedom. It seems that most are willing to give a little here and there for their pet projects. He was not. This is the best argument for the economic power that comes from freedom as well as the advantages for the individual. Over the long hall it is also the only way to prevent the loss of all freedoms. Read this book and it will positively change your life.

Mr. Friedman, God rest his soul, continues to demonstrate the link between laissez faire economics and personal freedom. This companion to "Capitalism and Freedom" is a must read for those who are interested in individual liberty and the economic system that pertuates such liberty.

Milton and Rose Friedman, "A society that puts equality - in the sense of equality of outcome - ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.
...
On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.'"

Milton Friedman, "Everybody agrees that socialism has been a failure. Everybody agrees that capitalism has been a success... yet everybody is extending socialism."

Almost 30 years on, Free to Choose still offers valuable insights to the political economics in western democracies. The books main message is that special interests always prevail over general interests. For that reason, we have tariffs on sugar though the majority of the electorate loses from it and we have restricted entry into several occupations like real estate brokers and furniture designing. The story of the development of the Interstate Commerce Commission is particuylarly readable. The ICC was established to protect the consumer (general interest), but quickly turned to protect the producers (special interest). Because special interests always prevail, the governments role in the economy should be restricted.

The Freidmans finish their book with a faint of hope. The final chapter is called The Tide is Turning, and in the foreword written in 1990, they acknowledge that public opinion is greatly different in 1990 than it was in 1975. And economic policy in the US is improved. Marginal tax rates are reduced sharply. Inflation is low and stable. The former communist countries have gone capitalist in scores.

Many of the key messages of the book are now conventional wisdom. Its still worth reading, though. The book offers a very gook look into the intellectual climate of the late 70s. It is one of the central works of one of history's most prominent economists. But foremost, it describes the logic of economics in a very beautiful way.

Milton Friedman was an economics professor at the University of Chicago who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his development of monetary economics. This book briefly explains how an economy works. Yet "Free to Choose" is something more. It's a personal statement that we should embrace free markets and freedom for all of us as individuals to make our own decisions. When we freely choose, the economy is more fair because individuals make their own choices with their own benefits and consequences. The economy is more prosperous and more efficient because the economy competed for customers and the best win out. A controlled economy is a huge mistake. The proper role of government should be that of a referee to ensure fair play - not run the game itself. Friedman's ideas moved the global economy ahead to more efficiency and prosperity, yet his ideas were based on the old ideas of liberty and free markets.

Friedman was an old-school liberal, better known these days as a libertarian. He believed strongly in the power of liberty, as opposed to extreme social orders such as Communism, Nazism, monopolies, mafias, religious theocracies, slavery, segregation, sexism, etc.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is one of the foundations upon which America had been founded. Yet pure free market economics fell out of favor in the wake of the excesses of the Gilded Age when unregulated capitalism was seen to have an immoral side of exploitation. After the trauma of the Great Depression, capitalism was seen to be unstable and cruel. Theodore Roosevelt used the Bully Pulpit to argue that government should regulate the "malefactors of great wealth." He created the Food and Drug Administration, broke up trusts, regulated railroads, and the American approved. Franklin Roosevelt pursued policies for economic stability and basic security, and Americans elected him president four times. Many people sincerely feared capitalism. This would inadvertently lead to some well-intentioned but very bad economic policies.

Some of the pragmatic reforms of the New Deal were excellent, such as the SEC to require audited financial statements, which leads to more transparent and more efficient markets. Without the SEC we would have many more Enron disasters. The Federal Reserve Open Market committee, a New Deal reform, manages the money supply. New Deal banking legislation requires certain capital reserves and insures deposits to $100,000, which forever ended bank panics. The FHA insured mortgages, which created the 30 year mortgage and brought home ownership to millions of people who used to have to rent or inherit a pile of money. Government regulations adopted later require safe consumer products, such as home appliances and the electrical hardware to bring electricity into our homes. The government regulates pollution. Student loans allow citizens to learn the skills that a prosperous economy needs.

Unfortunately, some of the government experiments in the mid-to-late 20th Century with regulations were mistakes, such as price controls and some welfare programs. Socialism became fashionable to many, especially in Europe, and regulations kept creeping upward. In the United States, this culminated in the late 1960s with the Great Society, although America never became truly socialistic like some European nations. By the 1970s, the global economy was mired in stagflation. Too many bureaucrats were making too many business decisions, hampering market activity and taking away the automatic operation of the economy through prices and consumer choices. Too many politicians were making decisions for purely political gain. Big city politicians have especially been that way for well over a century.

Friedman's weakness in this book is that he does not give due credit to the "referee" government regulations that ensure free and FAIR competition. Friedman is too one-sided in his argument. Indeed, his ideas work today because of pragmatic government reforms of capitalism, such as the New Deal, that did not exist in the past. Friedman emphasizes freedom, as he should for the time period he lived in, but there must be an assumption of at least mild fairness in order for free competition to work.

Remember the books by Charles Dickens on the horrors of the industrial revolution? Remember the disgusting pollution that was so bad in London that the fog was filthy black? Some old buildings in Europe today are still stained black from the filth because they could not be cleaned of the filth. Remember the horrors of industrial child labor and slavery? The most powerful quickly overwhelm the less powerful in a "free" market without protections, and that's how some people want it.

Friedman blames the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression, which is partly true, but the constrictive gold standard was a leading cause as it caused the Fed to tighten and then spread the Depression globally. The countries that abondoned the gold standard the quickest recoverd the quickest. The countries that were not on the gold standard did not experience the Great Depression at all! Hoover refused to abandon the gold standard. FDR abaondoned it quickly, and the contraction ended. Ironically, Friedman's critique says the government was responsible because it did not intervene as it should have earlier.

Also, the financial systems completely collapsed when over 10,000 banks collapsed. The economy would never have recovered without government intervention to save and then reform the financial system, which FDR eventually did. Friedman was not honest about this. He seems so fixated on claiming that government is the problem that he is not truthful about the Great Depression. Friedman also says that the Great Crash did not cause the Great Depression, which is true. But it did make a natural recovery impossible. The financial system fell like a house of cards because there was no regulatory structure to support it. Also, numerous financial scandals rocked the financial system, such as the scandal involving Richard Whitney, formerly the president of the New York Stock Exchange, a member of the board of governors, and arguably the most recognized broker in America.

Friedman also has an overly simplistic solution to inner-city poverty, and he says that schools should receive voicers so inner city parents can be better consumers through more freedom. This would do nothing to solve the real underlying (and maybe unsolvable problems) of cultures of disfunction, broken families, crime, and massive drug use. Ironically, Friedman would legalize drugs for more freedom. Friedman's overall theme of liberty being best is definitely correct, but with some commonsense exceptions please.

Adam Smith, the creator of economics, also said that government must make the investements for the common good that the free market never would make. America has a long history of making these investments, such as canals, roads, bridges, dams, school buildings, parks, aquaducts, etc. Yet Friedman mentions little about this partnership with government. Free markets do not work for everything, although I would argue for 95% of things.

Finally, economic activity is ultimately a social activity. People make money when they organizations with different functions and many people performing those function. It is only because we are socially cooperative that an economy can work. Friedman's emphasis on the individual is correct, but there is more to it. Look at this book as one of a dozen needed views.

Friedman was an optimist. He believed in the power of competition. He was 95% right. True competition will correct most economic problems. I wish more socialist liberals would read this book and learn that less is more. I highly recommend this book.

I also recommend Ronald Reagan's autobiography titled "An American Life," since he was the political figure who rhetorically sold Americans again on free markets. Reagan explains his optimistic views of free markets, his opposition to excessive government controls, his disgust for able-bodied freeloaders on welfare, and his optimistic belief in the goodness of individuals. He also says that he voted four times for Franklin Roosevelt, who said that welfare could destroy the work ethic like "a narcotic" and liquidated the temporary welfare programs designed to aid the country through the Depression once the crisis passed, only to be revived later. Reagan said he was not trying to undo the New Deal; he was trying to unleash the economy from the excesses of 1960s liberalism and excessive economic controls.

Milton Friedman was an economics professor at the University of Chicago who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his development of monetary economics. This book explains the principles of economics clearly and how an economy works. Yet "Free to Choose" is something more. It's a personal statement that we should embrace free markets. Despite Friedman's laudable academic work, his greatest significance in history is the impact his opinions had on our views of business activity and government policies. His ideas moved the global economy ahead to more efficiency and prosperity, yet his ideas were based on the old ideas of liberty and free markets.

Friedman was an old-school liberal, better known these days as a libertarian. He believed strongly in the power of liberty; free people making free choices. I agree completely with Friedman. FREE markets are best. FREE competition is best, as opposed to extreme social orders such as Communism, Nazism, monopolies, mafias, religious theocracies, slavery etc.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is one of the foundations upon which America had been founded. Yet pure free market economics fell out of favor in the wake of the excesses of the Gilded Age when unregulated capitalism was seen to be brutal, and after the trauma of the Great Depression when capitalism was seen to be unstable and cruel. Theodore Roosevelt used the Bully Pulpit to argue that government should regulate the "malefactors of great wealth." He created the Food and Drug Administration, broke up trusts, and regulated railroads, and the American approved. Franklin Roosevelt pursued policies for economic stability and basic security, and Americans elected him president four times. Because of the trauma of the Great Depression, many people sincerely feared free markets. This would inadvertently lead to some well-intentioned but very bad economic policies.

Some of the pragmatic reforms of the New Deal were good, such as the SEC to require audited financial statements, which leads to more transparent and more efficient markets. Without the SEC we would have many more Enron disasters. The Federal Reserve Open Market committee, a New Deal reform, manages the money supply. New Deal banking legislation requires certain capital reserves and insures deposits to $100,000, which forever ended bank panics. The FHA insured mortgages, which created the 30 year mortgage and brought home ownership to millions of people who used to have to rent or inherit a pile of money. Government regulations adopted later require safe consumer products, such as home appliances and the electrical hardware to bring electricity into our homes. The government regulates pollution. Student loans allow citizens to learn the skills that a prosperous economy needs.

Unfortunately, some of the government experiments with regulations were big mistakes, such as price controls and some welfare programs. Socialism became fashionable to many, especially in Europe, and regulations kept creeping upward. In the United States, this culminated in the late 1960s with the Great Society, although America never became truly socialistic like some European nations. By the 1970s, the global economy was mired in stagflation. Too many bureaucrats were making too many business decisions, hampering market activity and taking away the automatic operation of the economy through prices and consumer choices. Too many politicians were making decisions for purely political gain. Big city politicians have especially been that way for well over a century.

Friedman does a great job in this book of explaining how a sound economy works through natural price adjustments and free choices by consumers. He then explains how government policies, such as price controls, hamper economic forces and damage the economy, even when well intentioned.

A controlled economy is a huge mistake. Players should be allowed to compete freely in the game - the marketplace. When bureaucrats run the game, things go bad. The proper role of government should be that of a referee to ensure free play only. A free and fair market leads to more prosperity for everyone.

However, Friedman's weakness in this book is that he does not give due credit to the "referee" government regulations that ensure free and FAIR competition. Friedman is too one-sided in his argument. Indeed, his ideas work today because of pragmatic government reforms of capitalism, such as the New Deal, that did not exist in the past. Friedman emphasizes freedom, as he should for the time period he lived in, but there must be an assumption of at least mild fairness in order for free competition to work.

Remember the books by Charles Dickens on the horrors of the industrial revolution? Remember the disgusting pollution that was so bad in London that the fog was filthy black? Many old buildings in Europe today are still stained black from the filth. Remember the horrors of industrial child labor and slavery? The most powerful quickly overwhelm the less powerful in a "free" market without protections, and that's how some people want it.

Friedman blames the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression, which is true, but the constrictive gold standard caused the Fed to tighten. Also, without government regulations (yet) to prevent bank panics, over 10,000 banks collapsed. So Friedman's critique says the government was responsible because it did not do what it should have - and not that there should be no government at all.

Adam Smith also said that government must make the investements for the common good that the free market never would make. America has a long history of making these investments, such as canals, roads, bridges, dams, school buildings, parks, aquaducts, etc. Yet Friedman mentions little about this partnership with government.

Friedman was an optimist. He believed in the power of competition. He was 95% right. True competition will correct most economic problems. I wish more socialist liberals would read this book and learn that less is more. I highly recommend this book.

I also recommend Ronald Reagan's autobiography titled "An American Life," since he was the political figure who rhetorically sold Americans again on free markets. Reagan explains his optimistic views of free markets, his opposition to excessive government controls, his disgust for able-bodied freeloaders on welfare, and his optimistic belief in the goodness of individuals. He also says that he voted four times for Franklin Roosevelt, who said that welfare could destroy the work ethic like "a narcotic" and liquidated the temporary welfare programs designed to aid the country through the Depression once the crisis passed, only to be revived later. Reagan said he was not trying to undo the New Deal; he was trying to unleash the economy from the excesses of 1960s liberalism and excessive economic controls.

Milton Friedman was an economics professor at the University of Chicago who won the won the Nobel Prize in economics for his development of monetary economics. This book clearly explains the principles of economics and how an economy works best. Yet "Free to Choose" is something more. It's a personal statement that we should embrace free markets. Despite Friedman's laudable academic work, his greatest significance in history is the impact his opinions had on our views of business activity and government policies. His ideas moved the global economy ahead to more efficiency and prosperity, yet his ideas were based on the old ideas of liberty and free markets.

Friedman was an old-school liberal, better known these days as a libertarian. He believed strongly in the power of liberty; free people making free choices. I agree completely with Friedman. FREE markets are best. FREE competition is best, as opposed to extreme social orders such as Communism, Nazism, monopolies, mafias, religious theocracies, etc.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is one of the foundations upon which America had been founded. Yet free market economics fell out of favor in the wake of the excesses of the Gilded Age when unregulated capitalism was seen to be brutal and the trauma of the Great Depression when capitalism was seen to be unstable and cruel. Theodore Roosevelt used the Bully Pulpit to argue that government should regulate the "malefactors of great wealth." He created the Food and Drug Administration, and American approved. Franklin Roosevelt pursued policies for stability and basic security, and Americans elected him president four times. Because of the trauma of the Great Depression, most people sincerely feared free markets. This would inadvertently lead to some well-intentioned but very bad economic policies.

Some of the pragmatic reforms of the New Deal were good, such as the SEC to require audited financial statements, which leads to more transparent and more efficient markets. Without the SEC we would have many more Enron disasters. The Federal Reserve Open Market committee, a New Deal reform, manages the money supply. New Deal banking legislation requires certain capital reserves and insures deposits to $100,000, which forever ended bank panics. The FHA insured mortgages, which created the 30 year mortgage and brought home ownership to millions of people who used to have to rent or inherit a pile of money. Government regulations adopted later require safe consumer products, such as home appliances and the electrical hardware to bring electricity into our homes. The government regulates pollution.

Unfortunately, some of the government experiments with regulations were big mistakes, such as price controls and some welfare programs. Socialism became fashionable to many, especially in Europe, and regulations kept creeping upward. In the United States, this culminated in the late 1960s with the Great Society, although America never became truly socialistic like some European nations. By the 1970s, the global economy was mired in stagflation. Too many bureaucrats were making too many business decisions, hampering market activity and taking away the automatic operation of the economy through prices and consumer choices. Too many politicians were making decisions for purely political gain. Big city politicians have especially been that way for well over a century.

Friedman does a great job in this book of explaining how a sound economy works through prices and free choices by consumers. He then explains how government policies, such as price controls, hamper economic forces and damage the economy, even when well intentioned.

A controlled economy is a huge mistake. Players should be allowed to compete freely in the game - the marketplace. When bureaucrats run the game, things go bad. The proper role of government should be that of a referee to ensure free play only. A free and fair market leads to more prosperity for everyone.

However, Friedman's weakness in this book is that he does not give due credit to the "referee" government regulations that ensure free and FAIR competition. Friedman is too one-sided in his argument. Indeed, his ideas work today because of pragmatic government reforms of capitalism, such as the New Deal, that did not exist in the past. Friedman emphasizes freedom, as he should for the time period he lived in, but there must be an assumption of at least mild fairness in order for free competition to work.

Remember the books by Charles Dickens on the horrors of the industrial revolution? Remember the disgusting pollution that was so bad in London that the fog was filthy black? Many old buildings in Europe today are still stained black from the filth. Remember the horrors of industrial child labor and slavery? The most powerful quickly overwhelm the less powerful in a "free" market without protections, and that's how some people want it.

Friedman was an optimist. He believed in the power of competition. He was 95% right. True competition will correct most economic problems. I wish more socialist liberals would read this book and learn that less is more. I highly recommend this book.

I also recommend Ronald Reagan's autobiography titled "An American Life," since he was the political figure who rhetorically sold Americans again on free markets. Reagan explains his optimistic views of free markets, his opposition to excessive government controls, his disgust for able-bodied freeloaders on welfare, and his optimistic belief in the goodness of individuals. He also says that he voted four times for Franklin Roosevelt, who said that welfare could destroy the work ethic like "a narcotic" and liquidated the temporary welfare programs designed to aid the country through the Depression once the crisis passed, only to be revived later. Reagan said he was not trying to undo the New Deal; he was trying to unleash the economy from the excesses of 1960s liberalism and excessive economic controls.

To anyone who believes in libertarianism, this book is as relevant today as it was when first published. The Friedmans wrote the book with a general audience in mind, so it avoids much of the jargon of economists and rather tries to ground their arguments in good straight forward common sense. The Friedmans for most of their careers were bucking against the economic establishment. Yet so much within the book that they advocated, from sound money to decreasing government intervention in the economy, has come to pass. Even their main belief, school choice, is no longer considered a fantasy but is something under serious consideration.

Many people claim that "Free to Choose" converted them to libertarianism (though Milton Friedman always considered himself a "liberal"). I read this book long after I ended up there. But whether you are interested in libertarianism or have long been converted, this book is an essential part of your education.

Milton Friedman correctly faults large bureaucracies and overly intrusive government for failing to achieve the productivity of more market driven political economies.

BUT -- as Friedman points out, the Federal Reserve, by failing to provide necessary liquidity to rescue American commercial and savings banks in 1932, was the direct cause of the Great Depression.

This correct view by Milton Friedman should have compelled him to support government's monopoly over the fiat money supply YET insist that such federal monopoly be competent.

Friedman's whole thesis -- which today has nearly destroyed America's industrial base -- asks for competent government to strategically command the money supply and defense preparedness of the nation. This would keep government out of the detailed engineering and operations of major projects -- like winning WW II and the Cold War (and going to the moon and back ALIVE), but being IN at the beginning to establish imperative strategic goals, drive full protection of the environment, full military defense and war prevention, full educational opportunity for everyone from the cradle to the grave (with private schools as well as cooperative and public schools), and full employment -- to prevent decline and decay in society that guts the middle class and all its formerly cherished values.

Friedman saw too many GIANT POST OFFICE examples of INCOMPETENT government. He failed to enthusiastically demand competent government to PREVENT market failures, shoddy goods and people (who with steady jobs for their parents never would have turned out be shoddy), and all the corruption that flows from cut-throat competition in both business and government.

Friedman, Hayek and Von Mises have authored the death of Western Civilization by sending it in pursuit of the lowest price and highest crooked profit (where external costs are paid by children yet unborn and today's game is played as if there were no tomorrow.)

Communism is thankfully dead. But free trade and corporate greed will have to be tamed by real scholars who balance free enterprise at the level of detailed operations and demand strategic competence and genius at the level of national political economy -- to prevent economic anarchy from claiming to be the God it never was.

Pure intelligence.

Most articulate defense of free markets, individual liberty, unfettered entrepreneurialism, and "The American Way" that I have ever encountered.

Reagan may have been the great missionary of free markets and deregulation, but Friedman was undoubtedly the high priest. The greatest testament to the prescience of this book is that most of Milton's ideas have generally become conventional wisdom in the past quarter century.

The past 25 years have been an unquestionable vindication for Milton's theses- the US has experienced unparalled growth and low inflation due to pruning of Governnment bureaucracies and disciplined monetary policy, respectively. This economic "utopia" should come as no surprise; Friedman presents a plethora of anecdotal and empirical evidence for the problems that inevitably arise absent favorable regulatory and monetary conditions.

I wish someone had given me this book in high school while I was being inundated with neoliberal nonsense: "uneven distribution of wealth" and a "market failure" caused the depression, rather than lousy monetary policy. Friedman demonstrates that the MARKET had historically provided its own liquidity (e.g., during the Panic of 1907), and that subsequent to outsourcing this function to the Fed, the government dropped the ball in the early '30s by tightening the money supply. Alternatively, Fed Chairman Arthur F. Burns (under pressure from Nixon and others), pursued monetary policy that was far too easy in the 1970s, causing double digit inflation. Thank goodness we have had a succession of competent Fed Chairmen since 1979 (Volcker, Greenspan, and Bernanke) committed to keeping inflation in check.

Friedman also examines the effects of negative externalities (i.e., pollution) and presents a market-oriented approach to managing them, namely emissions trading. (want to feasibly address global warming?)

The main objections to Friedman's theses may arise from those who believe that the global economy is too unfair to American workers. Well, I have news for you- if you're looking for a panacea of lifetime job security and a static competitive environment, you're on the wrong planet. Sorry, there is no "conspiracy" or covert "war on the middle class", it's simply global competition. Your vote is not going to change the inexorable integration of world markets. Get over it.

The real challenge for American workers is how to (cost effectively) equip ourselves to compete in a global 21st century economy. Let's not hoist the flag of protectionism and promote class warfare. Instead, let's place some stock in ourselves and practice personal accountability. Friedman's suggestions for improving the quality of our schools is a good place to start.

I also highly recommend Peter Bernstein's "The Power of Gold" for a good overview of world monetary history.

This book did for me, a born-and-raised capitalist conservative, what the Bible does for me spiritually. My ideas about capitalism and the free market and government are reborn.

I read this book years ago, and Milton Friedman's recent death reminded me how perfectly it expressed my own view -- that most things work really well when government just leaves them alone and let's us make the choices. I realized that I had to own this book, and find that it has indeed stood the test of time. It's a masterpiece.

Outstanding and ageless. Should be required reading annually by everyone over the age of 16.

For people who have an open mind, this book will change the way you think about capitalism, government, and choice. For those who are set in their political ideals and goals (I'm talking about staunch democrats AND republicans), this book will not be worth reading.
As a relatively young person, who went through public schooling in the 80s/90s, I could only wish that our mandatory econmics classes or history classes covered or debated the information presented in this book. Kids, including myself, grow up with this idea of government as someone who steps in to right things that are "wrong", and that anytime something "wrong" happens the answer is more government. This book opened my eyes, showing that well-meaning and kind-hearted people try to solve a problems through government, but in many cases those people affected would have a more effective solution through the free market. This book explains how capitalism works, and elegantly explains why the "invisible hand" is often more effective at providing people's needs than top-down organization. I also like that instead of just pointing out problems (like poor schooling, welfare abuse, etc) there is an attempt to identify a solution.
I recommend this book, as well as capitalism and freedom, for anyone interested in understanding how a free-market economy works and for a healthy debate of the role of government in such a system to provide the greatest freedom. This book is obviously more current than the latter, is more easily read, and contains a chapter on inflation which I think is well-written and informative, especially considering the recent inflation fears over the price of energy. The only downside to this book, as well as capitalism and freedom, is that they are "dated". Some of the solutions and proposal are no longer feasible due to changes in the political climate and acceptance that "we've always had X governmental involvement".
Please don't reject this book because of political ideology (especially those who have a negative feeling towards reaganomics and associate this book with that idea) - peruse it and seriously consider what it has to say.

I read this first in high school, again in college, and I pick it up every now and again to review. This book opened my eyes to how the world works (to steal a phrase from Jude Wanniski). Everyone, no matter your political bent, should read this book from the master. During a recent car trip, I gave it to my 8th grade son, and he said "How come everyone doesn't read this? It makes so much sense!" Well said!

This book taught me and showed me a lot of stuff that I didn't know. It also covered some stuff that I did know, and parts of the book took me forever to get through. All in all it's a great book on free market economics and freedom in general. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants more liberty in their life.

A pretty decent book and a good read. While I do not agree with all of the topics in the book,(some are a little out of date) there are some very interesting topics, I especially like the piece about the illusion of free third level education and what the authors purpose instead. Overall I see the book as an attack on central government and the vast amounts of money they consume in promoting so called good ideas.

for any kid graduation from a public high school in America today,

Freedman is the best economist of the 20th century, and this book is the most important book of the last 100 years. It is impossible to exaggerate the influence this book has had (it kick-started the free market revolution under Reagan and Thatcher). I re-read it often. I wish all college students read this book, we would have to hear a lot less rubbish, if they did.

As time goes by, I have less and less respect for anything Milton Friedman has to say.

We should all remember that Enron is the desired Republican result of Friedman's "Structured Finance" - what others would call Organized Crime-style bust-outs and other scams. And we should all remember that the freedom to choose among consumer goods is NOT something the Founders considered important enough to enshrine in the Bill of Rights.

It is also important to note, as does Barry Schwartz, in his "The Paradox of Choice", that "constantly being asked to make choices, even about the simplest things, forces us to 'invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, and dread.' There comes a point, he contends, at which choice becomes debilitating rather than liberating. Did I make the right choice? Can I ever make the right choice?" We normally assume in America that more options ("easy fit" or "relaxed fit"?) will make us happier, but Schwartz shows the opposite is true, arguing that having all these choices actually goes so far as to erode our psychological well-being.

Many of Friedman's "suggestions for reform" are GOP platform line-items that serve the hidden agenda of gutting America's national security interests. This is especially true of his "school voucher" program that will deprive America the Nation of millions of intelligent citizens of the Republic who are qualified to vote based on an understanding of national issues that goes beyond the superficial jingoism doled out at "voucher schools", which are, in reality, nothing more than the segregation academies of the Massive Resisters.

So, as globalization (i.e. transnational corporatism) subsumes democracy, it becomes clear that Friedman is more of an apologist for profiteers and criminals than a major economic thinker.

I've read a handful of books that have changed how I think about the world. This book is at the top of that small stack.

Twenty-five years after its original publication as the book companion to a PBS series, Milton and Rose Friedman's "Free to Choose" (FTC) remains a highly relevant, easy to read, classic tome expounding the virtues of free market capitalism and the flaws and dangers of socialism and government control of the economy.

The Friedman's brilliance in FTC is to continually demonstrate how government control inhibits personal freedom, whereas free market capitalism is what results when individuals have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The roots of the Friedman's arguments go all the way back to the Jeffersonian concept of liberty as defined in the Declaration of Independence. Modern-day liberalism, which still believes in the "right to choose" in many social arenas (in fact, these exact words are used by abortion rights supporters), does not believe in an individual's right to choose in economic manners (e.g. liberalism would say a woman can choose to have an abortion, but it should be provided by a doctor working in the government run healthcare system). When the Friedman's describe their ideal economic system and practices, they are describing the principles of classical liberalism, or libertarianism. In FTC, the Friedmans present the basic arguments of libertarianism in engaging, persuasive language using layman's terms.

The Friedmans have obviously won many converts. Milton Friedman was one of the intellectual forces behind the Reagan revolution, and showed how to boost the U.S. economy by lowering marginal tax rates and reducing government regulation. He is the father of school vouchers, to give poor Americans the opportunity to choose the schools their children attend (this is described in FTC chapter six). He won a Nobel Prize for his monetary theories, and FTC includes an analysis of the monetary failures that Friedman claims both led to and prolonged the Great Depression.

FTC covers many other important economic topics. The Friedmans present strong arguments in favor of free trade, which is constantly under attack in the halls of Congress. They describe the downsides of government regulation, and show how it can lead to the opposite of the intended effects. An entire chapter is devoted to the cause and cure for inflation, a problem that bedeviled the U.S. in the 1970s and that gave rise to the Reagan revolution. But I would cite chapter five, entitled "Created Equal", as the single most important chapter in the book. The Friedmans show how the concept of equality has changed since the country's founding, and show the dangers of "equality of outcome", which many misguided politicians and other leaders appear to want, although not individuals (else why do so few choose to live in communes?).

I've heard it said that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hands out copies of this book as gifts. If so, he should be careful about passing out copies to his Kennedy in-laws, as this book just might cause Ted Kennedy's mind to blow if he ever bothered to read it. Someday, the last of the old guard socialists such as Castro and Ted Kennedy will pass on, thereby providing more opportunity for the "turning tide" towards economic freedom that the Friedmans describe in the last chapter of FTC to become even more prevalent.

I was a Democrat before I read this book. I now lean Libertarian. This book cannot but change at least some of your views on public policy.
Having said that, Friedman and the Libertarian party overestimate the wisdom and knowledge of the public. There is no shortage of stupid people out there who need the state to tell them what they can or cannot do. Freedom is great but is subordinate to personal well-being.

The authors, Dr. Freidman and wife Rose, marvelled that the free market price system marries buyers and sellers without central
direction. This is done by transmitting only the important information consumers must know without the burden of government interference or excessive record-keeping. In the USA, the major
productive resource is personal productive capacity which is
human capacity. This human capital takes the form of compensation to employees in the form of wages, salaries and supplements.

The authors believe that common ownership will not provide the requisite incentives to maintain and improve property on an ongoing basis. For this reason,many structures in the old Soviet Union require extensive repair within a year or so of being built.

The book points to Hong Kong as the modern exemplar of the free market devoid of excessive government control. Accordingly, free trade (by the authors) should be offered everywhere. The book discusses the advent of growing underemployment and unemployment in the welfare states. In education, the authors prefer a voucher system to preserve freedom of choice in the inner city schools. The current mayor of NYC is attempting to provide free choice by opening a series of competitive "small schools" with admission by formal examination or prior scholastic excellence.

At the Agency level, the authors have called for deregulation to
simplify business operations and recordkeeping. The remaining
question involves the mechanism for doing this without losing
total control. Too much free market has created some problems
with Enron and other corporate entities. Clearly, exclusive
self-monitoring does not operate to make every corporation
do the right thing by the stockholders and the general public.
The current challenge is how to have less Agency oversight
without endangering the public's need for consumer protection
on an ongoing basis. In addition, some readers seem to be
looking for a perfect economic system or philosophy. In
implementation, such a business utopia does not exist. There
will be imperfections in every system due to the nature of
human beings and behavior.

The work draws heavily upon Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations
which combined the best of political freedoms with the individual
right to pursue the extensive collaboration necessary to exchange
food, clothing, services and housing voluntarily. Even in the
old Soviet Union-Gosplan , voluntary cooperation was needed to resolve intractable central planning problems and rigidities, according to the authors.

In the People's Republic of China, the neighborhood work leagues have slowly absorbed some of the free-market organizational superstructures. When H. Ross Perot visited China,
he noted brand new factories and facilities on a 30-mile
industrial highway . The challenge for the People's Republic is
to incorporate the western management organizational designs and
theories without losing the rigid governmental superstructure.
These two goals are at considerable odds. Ultimately, Chinese
consumers will come to demand greater freedoms, as more information becomes available from the World-Wide-Web and
cultural exchanges with Western universities, global professional
organizations, customers and consulting think-tanks.

Overall, the work is a classic. The contents are tempered by
the consumer's need for protection against corporate greed
and the stockholders' interest in enforcing accountability
from management and the Board of Directors. In addition,
consumers need the environmental protection against the
excesses of industrial pollution. The authors provide a service
in calling for the abolition of unnecessary regulations which
interfere with the operational throughput of business transactions. No-one is saying that all regulation should be
abolished.

Some reviewers have criticized Dr. Friedman's call for a freer
market in the implementation of business systems. These criticisms should be placed in a practical context. The author
is not calling for a total abolition of the quasi-governmental
structures of the Federal Reserve and other governmental agencies. He is calling for a more meaningful regulation.
Clearly, the reviewers' criticisms must be counterbalanced
against the excesses of Goshplan and the large unemployment or
underemployment in some socialist systems.

On the other hand, capitalism needs rigorous oversight by the private and public sector to forestall the conditions which brought about the Great Depression, sweat shops, child labor exploitation and fiduciary malfeasance in the investment community. The private sector cannot monitor itself exclusively due to client opinion-shopping and the non-cooperation of some managements with internal auditing. There is still a need for an independent Board of Directors with a powerful and independent audit oversight function. The existence of government agencies will complement this effort by the private sector. Recently,
the Securities Exchange Commission has strengthened controls
in favor of protecting investors.

The Quasi-Reorganization in Bankruptcy provides an independent
mechanism for a company to start over . In this situation,
the retained earnings is dated- usually for a period of a decade.
In addition, there is a fair financial disclosure of the
events which precipitated the bankrupt condition. During the
period of a re-start, the company can examine both profitable
and unprofitable operations. This dispassionate self-analysis
should lead to the company emphasizing strength areas and
shedding the less profitable ventures.

The volume should be read by a wide constituency of business
people and academic researchers-everywhere. Clearly, Dr.Friedman
has produced a considerable scholarship even after winning the
Nobel Prize in Economics. A strength of the presentation is that
it is understandable to the average American consumer. The overall gist of the book is that the free market is color-blind
in the conduct of economic transactions across the USA and the
world. Since the free market is color-blind, it is a good
forum for conducting business transactions.

Friedman lays out his case for limited government, smaller bureaucracy, and less taxation. He offers poignant criticism of the public sector in all of the major areas: education, welfare, taxation, industrial regulation, consumer protection and conservation. His analysis of inflation and monetary policy is spot on when he points out that the overriding determinant to inflation is the money supply, which is controlled by government.

Though his criticisms of the current system are all good, his proposals to replace them aren't much better, and he does a poor job of defending them. He puts forth a negative income tax proposal as an alternative to the current tax system. However, he doesn't say why it is necessary to have any taxes at all, and I can't infer any reason he might think so. Same with his voucher plan: why should education be socialized at all? He also says he's against a gold standard, but doesn't say why.

Friedman is one of the most eminent libertarians out there, a proponent of limited government. Personally, I'm an anarchist, and I thought that by reading this I might find out why some libertarians think limited government better than no government. I was disappointed in this regard, and Friedman's avoidance of the issue leaves me more befuddled than ever. If you're interested in Libertarian philosophy, read For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. It's a far superior Libertarian manifesto.

With "Free to Choose", Milton Friedman has achieved an easy to understand and common sense guide to understanding economics. Mr. Friedman answers questions such as: What is price and how does price convey information in a free vs. socialist market? What are the implications of legislation artificially controlling price? What drives commodity prices such as oil? How do economic and political freedoms coincide? What alternatives are there to a better public education? What should be the role of government in a free society? Mr. Friedman provides lucid answers and alternatives to issues that are commonly attacked by an appeal to the emotions of the masses. To really understand the concepts, this book must be studied. Taking time to understand Mr. Friedman's concepts can help clear many misconceptions and confusion about the economy as well as our day-to-day lives. The knowledge gained from this book is invaluable and may forever change the way you think.

The absolute best thing about this economics book is that it is easy to read. If you ever wanted to know the conservative (or classic liberal) point of view on the topics of the day (social security, welfare, minimum wage, etc.), but did not feel like trudging through "The Wealth of Nations", this is the book for you. Whether you agree or disagree with the arguments, they are proposed in easily accessible language.

I think that the most important chapter is the one which gave the history of bank runs and the creation of the Federal Reserve. I knew about what the Fed did/did not do up until the crash, but did not know about all of the prior bank runs. If you do not know this history, learn about it here or from other sources because it will change the way you view the Fed and their ability to manipulate the economy.

This book is dated so be forewarned. However, the overall approach of synthesizing policy, thesis and antithesis is a fantastic. For those without any background in this area, it will be an "Atlas Shrugged" kind of reading.