Milton Friedman, a father of financial futures

Leo Melamed writes:

I asked him [Friedman] whether he would endorse–when Bretton Woods collapsed–the concept of futures contracts in foreign exchange.  Without hesitation, Dr. Milton Friedman embraced the concept and authored a study in December 1971 which became the intellectual foundation for the birth of currency futures.  It was not a major treatise, hundreds of pages long with footnotes and a bibliography.  The world-renowned economist stated all he needed to say in just 11 pages.  His paper, entitled "The Need for Futures Markets in Currencies," provided us with academic authenticity of the highest magnitude to prove that our theory was a viable necessity.  As I often stated, "Professor Friedman gave my idea the credibility without which the concept might never have become a reality."  For with Dr. Friedman’s paper in hand, I was able to convince government officials, bank presidents and the CME brokerage community that the idea had merit.

This is an excellent illustration of Alex’s point that Milton was an entrepreneurial economist.  Here is more

Milton had been right all along that flexible exchange rates were entirely workable.  He was wrong in underestimating their volatility through periodic, and possibly inexplicable, "long swings" in the levels.  Oddly, his mistake on this point probably enabled currency futures and options to be even more successful than he had expected.

Addendum: Here is Greg Mankiw on Milton, here is Arnold Kling.  Here is a link fest at PrestoPundit.  Here is a misleading piece on Milton as friend of big government; just ask Roger Douglass, Vaclav Havel, or many others.

The Methodology of Positive Economics

I’ve never read Milton as a naive positivist, although some of the quotations from his article sound that way.  Milton was more of a methodological pluralist and a Marshallian.  Do what works. 
Bring a variety of kinds of evidence to bear on a problem (it is sad
how neglected this principle is in modern economics), be pragmatic, and
don’t reject a model just because it doesn’t meet one of your
prejudices.  I think that is what he meant by not judging a model by
its assumptions.  Falsifiability is a chimera, but did Friedman really
seek or advocate that as a standard?  Most of all he wanted propositions with empirical content.  He understood that no single fact can refute a theory, and that many tests are of frameworks, not single propositions.  Data should and indeed must be viewed through the lens of theory, and our goal should be to solve problems.

Was Milton closer to Quine than to Carnap?  Here is his classic essay.

My favorite things Indiana

A brief trip it will be, but here goes:

1. Music: Michael Jackson is from Gary, and his most underrated song is "She’s Out of My Life."  There is also Cole Porter (overrated in my view, compared to Jerome Kern) and Ned Rorem.  Wes Montgomery has a few good albums, usually they are live; it is a shame he wasted his immense talent on muzak.

2. Literature: Sorry, but I find Kurt Vonnegut unreadable, and don’t tell me about Harrison Oberon.  Dreiser?  I’ve never read Newton Tarkington, who wrote The Magnificent Ambersons.  I’ll go with Philip Jose Farmer and his Riverworld series.

3. Painter: I am only slightly fond of Robert Indiana (yes he is from the state), or for that matter William Merritt Chase; here is my favorite Chase painting.

4. Favorite small town: Alex recommends Columbus, Indiana, for wonderful architecture.  I defer to him.

5. Movie, set in: Hoosiers and Breaking Away do not sit well with me, so help me out if you can.

6. Blogger and libertarian crusader for civil liberties: Radley Balko.

The bottom line: I don’t even like James Dean.  Radley is great, but my favorite thing Indiana is in fact Liberty Fund.

Milton Friedman: Entrepreneurial Economist

Great economist by day and crusading public intellectual by night, Milton Friedman was my hero.  Friedman’s contributions to economics are profound, the permanent income hypothesis, the resurrection of the quantity theory of money, and his magnum opus with Anna Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960, all stand as great achievements.

But Friedman did not restrict his genius to the academy, he used economics to forcefully argue for a better world.  Friedman was a key player in ending the draft, he championed school choice and drug legalization.  He not only wrote about floating exchange rates he helped to bring them into being.  The end of welfare as we know it?  Friedman’s negative income tax was an inspiration.

Milton Friedman loved liberty.  Even today, chills run down my spine whenever I read the slashing opening to Capitalism and Freedom

President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country."… Neither half of that statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.

Damn right.

On a personal note, Friedman inspired my book, Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science, in which I said Milton Friedman was the greatest entrepreneurial economist of the twentieth century.  It was thus a real thrill for me and a bringing around of the circle when I sent him a draft and he wrote back praising the book (see the back cover!).

He will be missed.

When I think of Milton Friedman

When I think of Milton Friedman, I often think first of — oddly enough — his essay on a commodity reserve currency.  This not-quite-famous piece of 1951 does not bear on current policy debates, and it did not much influence the world.  The idea of backing a money with a commodity bundle wasn’t going to happen anyway.

But it shows one of the sides of Milton I most admire, namely his razor-sharp logic and his ability to get to the core of an idea and pick it apart.  It is a model of understanding and argumentation.  I read this piece and quake with fear that I might someday disagree with Milton and be disassembled in a quick debate, if the word debate could even be said to apply.

Milton’s critics sometimes portray him as a monetary dogmatist, but this was never the case.  The early Milton favored one hundred percent reserve banking, in part as a reaction against the bank failures and excesses of the Great Depression.  I read the commodity basket piece as breaking his ties to the commodity money idea, an old (and perhaps outdated?) piece of classical liberal thought.

The mid-period Milton favored a fixed rate of monetary growth.  The Milton Friedman of 1969 considered the idea of deflation — an "optimum quantity of money" — although it is not clear he ever endorsed that proposal.  The Milton Friedman of 1986 Friedman and Schwartz toyed with ideas of free banking.  The very late period Milton Friedman was moving toward the notion of an inflation rule, as monetary targeting had not worked.

Milton was always on a quest toward a greater truth.  If an argument ran against him — and usually it didn’t — he would submit and pick up the pieces in a purely forward-looking manner.

I think often of Milton’s essay on commodity reserve currency.

Milton Friedman passes away at 94

Here is the NYT story, still gated.  Here are more articles

I believe Capitalism and Freedom was the second or third book I ever read on economics and it definitely shaped my life.  I knew Milton only a bit but he was always gracious and of course razor sharp and a lover of liberty and prosperity.  He was one of the most important minds of the second half of the twentieth century and his influence remains felt all around the world.  In purely academic terms, he easily could have won two or three Nobel Prizes from the quality and quantity of his work.

Here is Levitt’s brief tribute.  Here is WSJ.com, via Brad DeLong.

Mistakes, or behavioral economics for babies

Hiding

Young children aged between two and four years believe that you only
have to hide your head to become invisible – if your legs are on view,
it doesn’t matter, you still can’t be seen.

That’s according to Nicola McGuigan
and Martin Doherty who say this is probably because young children
think of ‘seeing’ in terms of mutual engagement between people. It
explains why kids often think they can’t be seen if they cover their
eyes.

Here is further discussion.

Politically incorrect paper of the month

Many studies have shown that women are under-represented in tenured ranks in the sciences.  We evaluate whether gender differences in the likelihood of obtaining a tenure track job, promotion to tenure, and promotion to full professor explain these facts using the 1973-2001 Survey of Doctorate Recipients.  We find that women are less likely to take tenure track positions in science, but the gender gap is entirely explained by fertility decisions.  We find that in science overall, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor after controlling for demographic, family, employer and productivity covariates and that in many cases, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor even without controlling for covariates.  However, family characteristics have different impacts on women’s and men’s promotion probabilities.  Single women do better at each stage than single men, although this might be due to selection.  Children make it less likely that women in science will advance up the academic job ladder beyond their early post-doctorate years, while both marriage and children increase men’s likelihood of advancing.

Here is the NBER version, here is a non-gated version.  Alas, I have not had time to read this piece, although I know and respect the work of Shu Kahn, one of the authors.

Addendum: Matt Yglesias comments.

Microfoundations of slow European growth

European industries seem to have higher entry costs, and with them lower turnover rates: 50% of new pharmaceutical products in America come from firms less than ten years old, against only 10% in Europe; 12% of the biggest US firms by market cap at the end of the 1990s were less than 20 years old, against 4% of the biggest European firms.

Here is more.  Here is a more general piece on the latest growth news out of Europe.

The Federalization Fraud

Every time there is a nationally publicized crime some Federal politician stands ready to get tough and pass a law.  In recent years, we have had The Juvenile Crime Control Act,
The Church Arson Prevention Act,
The Sex Crimes against Children Prevention Act and so forth leading the naive to wonder why Church arson wasn’t illegal before the act was passed.

Of course, arson has always been illegal and well prosecuted under state law.  Federal law is not only unnecessary in many cases it is a fraud.  Take the most recent example, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed this year.  The act dramatically increases the penalties for aggravated sexual abuse (or an unsuccesful attempt at such abuse) to a mandatory 30 year prison sentence with no opportunity for parole.  The penalties are draconian but here’s the kicker.  The penalties only apply to Indians on reservations, citizens of Washington DC and those few offenders who might cross a state line in commission of their offense.   No other citizens face anything like these kinds of penalties.

For more on the Theory of Federalism and an application to crime see my powerpoint discussion given last week to a group of Federal judges.

Scream this from the rooftops

We can’t just bargain down the prices of pharmaceutical drugs without adverse consequences.  It is hard to measure the effects here, but yesterday I came across this piece of serious empirical work:

EU countries closely regulate pharmaceutical prices whereas the U.S. does not.  This paper shows how price constraints affect the profitability, stock returns, and R&D spending of EU and U.S. firms.  Compared to EU firms, U.S. firms are more profitable, earn higher stock returns, and spend more on research and development (R&D).  Some differences have increased over time.  In 1986, EU pharmaceutical R&D exceeded U.S. R&D by about 24 percent, but by 2004, EU R&D trailed U.S. R&D by about 15 percent.  During these 19 years, U.S. R&D spending grew at a real annual compound rate of 8.8 percent, while EU R&D spending grew at a real 5.4 percent rate.  Results show that EU consumers enjoyed much lower pharmaceutical price inflation, however, at a cost of 46 fewer new medicines introduced by EU firms and 1680 fewer EU research jobs.

Here is the paper.  Here is a non-gated copy.  Here is my column on medical R&D.  Here is a previous installment in the series "Scream this from the rooftops."