Friedman galore

Jeg skal ellers lige love for, at Milton Friedmans (1912-2006) dødsfald er blevet markeret af de danske medier! Ikke så meget af de elektroniske, hvor jeg ikke har set en eneste reference (men kan have overset noget).  Men avisernes nyhedsdækning har–i det store billede–været nogenlunde med, om end der, som omtalt her på stedet, var nogle enkelte skæverter hist og pist.  Men der har været rigtig godt gang i kronik-spalterne: I går var det vores læser, cand.polit. Per Henrik Hansen i Berlingske Tidende (om end for 2. gang med et forkert portrætfoto …, tsk, tsk, tsk), mens denne skribent for en gangs skyld foldede sig ud med en kronik i Jyllands-Posten.  Og sørme om ikke en anden bekendt af denne blog, cand.polit. Lars Christensen i dag skrev kronikken i Information. (Selvsamme LC har også skrevet en hel bog om Friedman–i en iøvrigt glimrende serie ved navn “Økonomiens Konger” …)

4 thoughts on “Friedman galore

  1. Nikolaj Hawaleschka Stenberg

    Der har jo i Danmark udviklet sig en “god” tradition for, at man hellere vil høre vox popoli mens de står ved kassen i Netto end folk, der rent faktisk ved noget om noget (læs: akademikere).

    Svar
  2. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

    Der bliver ved med at komme velskrevne tributter til Friedman. Alvaro Vargas Llosa (den store forfatters søn) har for Washington Post skrevet en glimrende klumme:http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1855“As for Friedman’s supposed espousal of big business to the detriment of the little guy, the truth was exactly the opposite. For him, the separation between government and business was as important as the separation between church and state. He understood that businesses prefer for governments to bend the rules in their favor rather than compete, and he wanted the little guy—that is, the consumer, and not the legislator and his cronies in big business—to determine success and failure in the marketplace. The expression “free to choose” said it all: It was about expanding choice for the little guy. In those countries where Friedman’s ideas triumphed, workers became shareowners, tenants in housing projects became proprietors, kids without college degrees became entrepreneurs and many a corporate giant came tumbling down, unable to withstand the daily choices of the common folk empowered by the separation between state and business. …Above all else, Friedman symbolized the power of ideas. Millions of people who have never heard of him lead better lives today in Asian and Central European countries (and in Britain, too) in part because his ideas proved more resilient than the prejudices that surrounded his name in political and intellectual circles, than the social engineers who tried to impose their bureaucratic whims under the cloak of altruism, or the police states that thought themselves eternal.”Friedmans gode ven, National Review-grundlæggeren William F. Buckley (“Mr. Conservative”) har en for Buckley ukarakteristisk følsom hyldest i sidste uges klumme:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20061122/cm_ucwb/miltonfriedmanripDet viser sig, at Friedman skulle have været sammen med Buckley og andre ideologiske venner den dag, da Friedman døde:”What struck the band of brothers who came together last Friday afternoon to devise an impromptu tribute to our missing seminarist was in fact exactly that — grief, never mind that he had lived 94 years. Although Professor Friedman engaged himself to the end, in tandem with his brilliant wife, Rose, in academic and philosophical work, it was not the discontinuation of this that caused the pang aboard the S.S. Oosterdam. If the word had come that Friedman would never again write an academic paper, or a book or column, we’d have tightened our belts, and perhaps reminded ourselves of the million words that are there in print, and will always be there, to reread and to ponder. But what we felt was not so much the discontinuation of that great wellspring of liberal and penetrating thought. It was grief for the loss of a person. It is inevitably so that the end of life of a central intellectual or political or indeed theatrical figure can be felt personally only by a comparative few, because only a few can have known any historical figure. The legion of admirers at a remove — those who felt for him, without ever having met him, admiration, devotion, even love — is something different, more detached. But there was also the impact of his person on individual students and friends and coadjutors, and on Thursday, Nov. 16, we felt a wholly personal loss. “

    Svar

Leave a Reply to Lars Andersen Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.