Milton Friedman on Keynes, Intellectuals, and Private vs Public

Image credit

I have recently published the below video on Keynes' work and life. I had meant to make a number of remarks on the interview by Milton Friedman contained in it:

I.

His earlier remark (time marks 49:58 to 50:54) that Keynes was a child of the 1930s in that he occupied himself with the scourge of unemployment rather than inflation is a little odd, for unemployment was the great issue of the time, Keynes's analysis of the calamity is of the form of a general theory, i. e. just as relevant today as in his time, and, in fact, a much needed extension of classical and neoclassic economics both of which are lacking the notion of involuntary unemployment suggesting instead a self-regulating mechanism supposedly preventing involuntary unemployment that Keynes showed not to be working. 

Also, as Friedman expressly reminds us contradicting his insinuation that Keynes supposedly neglected inflation in favour of unemployment, Keynes was very much aware of the problems of inflation, while his General Theory does not represent an obstacle to avoiding or countering inflationary developments.

By contrast, Friedman's monetarism has ended up empirically refuted, as every central bank will acknowledge today. 

By contrast, Keynes' position that money is not neutral but the linchpin of "a monetary production economy" — an economy  whose real variables are decisively influenced by money — is recognised as pivotal by contemporary central banks.

II.

As for Milton Friedman's remarks between time marks 57:04 to 58:33, I have two things to remark:

Milton Friedman is one of many intellectuals of enormous political influence who condemn the enormous political influence of intellectuals (of a persuasion opposed to his).

Friedman comes up with the conservative-libertarian topos of public (bad) versus private (good), government (bad) versus private activities (good), cooperative voluntary and voluntary cooperation of individuals (good) versus collective compulsion  (bad).

There is no such categorical good and bad, to begin with. Private activities can have very bad consequences, while clearly certain forms of collectively organised action is exceedingly positive for the individual and their interaction within a community. Yes, the opposite is also true in many cases but this does not justify slanting the entire complex issue in one direction.

It may appear a more subtle consideration but it is nonetheless a fundamental and important one that  on a number of levels there simply is no sharp juxtaposition between public and private but a wholesome blending.

The modern conception of the private individual and her rights and actions is a category enclosed within notions of the public. It is not the opposite or counterpart of concepts of the public, but a set of nodes (of concepts describing private features) that interact with other such nodes (describing public features).

The modern private person is a public phenomenon on account of the fact that rights that used to be the privilege of a small subsection of the population are nowadays extended to every citizen, notably the right to participate in politics and the state and in the competition for (qualified and contestable as opposed to total) social and political dominance.

The private person is the person who is invited and welcome to make her contribution to the public discourse and the decisions derived from it. This is true both for issues that may concern only a small number of parties (say, two contesting parties) or the entire population. In principle, every public issue is open to challenge or discursive participation by a human being in her private capacity. And every private issue can be made subject of public deliberation. In both cases, of course, there are important procedural rules and limits designed to avoid inappropriate preponderance of the public impact on private concerns (e. g. erosion of individual rights) or an inordinate private impact on public concerns (e. g. monopoly issues).

In addition, especially when people interact with one another — as they do when participating in market activities —, there is no such thing as a purely private activity. Social interaction (as practised in the form of economic activities) is shot through with rules and regulations both of a formal and an informal kind. People are subjecting themselves to public conventions, constantly working them out at the margin or more broadly and more fundamentally. 

It is not possible to establish a market as a purely private activity. I cannot announce "my market" in which all rules accord with my discretion. Markets are by their very nature of a public nature, a compromise between countless contributions, sometimes reflecting private aspects to a larger, sometimes to a lesser extent. Frequently, private requests will already have internalised social demands/compromises, demonstrating that the need to accommodate the requirements of fellow humans is second nature for the private individual.

Ideologically it is easier to deal with simple dichotomies, practically we need to be more differentiating than the propagandist and more willing to recognise a multitude of interests some of which are easy and others harder to reconcile.