That partisan hate for a Nobel winner thrives at Chicago says much more about the university than it does about Dr. Friedman. Let them change the name; Friedman's name and his writings will endure for centuries among the more open-minded.

"Economics is a highly competitive field." Dear Judge, please name one that isn't highly competitive. Even in the disciplines which pay their PhDs much less than economics PhD's, there is a ferocious competition for any decent tenure track position.
Would anyone like to play devil's advocate for the Judge, who, I might assume, has a few cases to adjudicate?

Thank you for raising my awareness to this shameful disrespect towards Friedman. What a short-sighted view those faculty members must have.

"What's in a Name"? I've never been a big fan of putting people's names on things and organizations. I much prefer a more descriptive title. Like, "The UofC Institute for Economic Research & Development". But what do I know? There are hundreds if not thousands of Institutes named after people (not too mention streets and parks). Such as, Max Planck, Salk, Fermi, Pillsbury, Venter, Lerner, Cato?, Howard Hughes, Getty, Nestle, even including trees, Aspen, and tree seeds, Buckeye.

So what's in a Name? "Friedman" is just as good as anything. Especially, if it helps to raise funds for the organization's operating budget.

Judge Posner, that is at best a lukewarm defense of the University of Chicago's gesture in honor of a great man. If you do not wish to take a firm stand on the matter, why post the comment?

I would hope that these 150 self-rightous prfessors would turn down a Nobel Peace Prize because Alfred Nobel was famous for inventing a weapon of war. I am sure that they would-----NOT.

We live in a time in which certain groups move to erase names because they offend the politically correct zeitgeist, such as attempts to do away with things named after slaveholders George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. However, what's missing is context. Today's hero could be, in a generation or two, not worthy of the honor (or vica versa). The current controversy concerning Friedman is anything but contextual: opponents have seized upon recent Wall Street financial problems as a pretext for their 60's militancy, without regard for the position Friedman played in both academia and American life. As such, their opposition is suspect and not worthy of consideration by the university.

I guess we're done with that silly global recession business. Thank goodness. Now we can move on to something really substantive and far-reaching, like faculty politics at Chicago.

What person's name would not generate some sort of controversy? All over academia, there is expressed distaste when it is proposed to name an endowed chair after someone who is distasteful to others. It is as if University faculty are unaware that fundraising is the IV that sustains the lifeblood of their college.
That being said, I recall my first courses in Economics and the coursebooks authored by Prof. Friedman. I thought 'who is this guy' and why is he trying to confuse me? Give him a plaque or a lintel or classroom complex with his name, but an entire Institute?

For someone outside the academy this furor is hard to understand. Friedman's ideas will be reevaluated by succeeding generations of economists who have the benefit of history including the current crisis. If his ideas do not stand the test of history he remains one of the most influential individuals ever associated with the UC. Robert E. Lee was wrong at Gettysburg and on the question of succession but his name is engraved on too many monuments and buildings to catalogue. The faculty would do well to stay out of this matter but it is a curious spectacle and a reminder of why serious people might want to avoid the faculty experience.

It is said that Academic politics is so intense because there is so little at stake.

Jim: I think it was Kissinger who said that.

Speaking of the devil, is there a Henry Kissinger School of Foreign Policy yet? Didn't he win the Nobel Prize...

Thanks Dan,

There is such a double standard in all of this. It makes me think that hypocrisy is a more pervasive social illness than imagined.

"It makes me think that hypocrisy is a more pervasive social illness than imagined." And there are more fools (and quacks) than I imagined. But I'm glad you were able to take a moral shit on this one, Jim.

Posner frameworks the discussion in a way that although *au fait* in America, is bizarre globally.

It is simply untrue that universities are "monolithically liberal" unless it is possible to base a university on pre-enlightenment world-views.

Even the Catholic Church was incapable of this stunt, for its leading educational order, the Jesuits, had to make its peace with the enlightenment in order to do its job.

The University of Chicago gets its somewhat less than "monolithically" liberal reputation only because some of its faculty, and some of its bitter, twisted, and prematurely aged graduate students, will say paradoxical things which call into question the basic values of the Enlightenment such as fairness, decency, and an expanding as opposed to a contracting culture.

For example, a U of C math professor told Saul Bellow, who could for some strange reason never get a real job at the U of C despite winning a Nobel or two, that he didn't use the university library because he didn't read outside his field.

Comes now the Judge, Posner, who is also apt to say strikingly narrow and nasty things, either because he's engaged in high class trolling (which is bad) or actually believes them (which is worse).

Would the same professors object to naming an economic research institution the John Meynard Keynes Institute? If so, I would perhaps be sympathetic, but I just do not believe that would be the case.

Edward G. Nilges, that post was absolutely incoherent.

Some remarks in romanian/european language for US-UE citizens from Romania, a percent of

your readers & taxpayers by the way...

Standard & Poor 'scade calificative nationale, ca minoritaru' lautar, ...dupa ureche

http://sorinplaton.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/standard-poors-s-tales/

Cele bune sa se adune,

1= [rezistenta antigloAbalizanta din muntzi :) ]

Some remarks in romanian/european language for US-UE citizens from Romania, a percent of

your readers & taxpayers by the way...

Standard & Poor 'scade calificative nationale, ca minoritaru' lautar, ...dupa ureche

http://sorinplaton.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/standard-poors-s-tales/

Cele bune sa se adune,

1= [rezistenta antigloAbalizanta din muntzi :) ]

Yo Judge Posner...thank you for blog...interesting, informative. Comments were interesting too...touched some nerves with this post. Glad I don't have to sit in on THOSE faculty meetings. Talk about turf wars...does this discussion affect young Professor Posner?

Good riddance to the evil dwarf.

Why name anything after him. He lived his life in a island of fantasy as do his followers.

He missed his chance in life when he didn't get a part in a once popular TV show.

How I would have loved to see him "Boss!... The plane! The plane!"

Not let's see. 150 faculty at The U of C, 80 faculty at Duke. Does anyone see a similarity?

I will wager that a public hanging in Durham or Hyde Park would draw a sizeable crowd.

This is a response to the comments by Sylvester:

It's not the competition for labor positions that is the issue here, but the competition of ideas. I do work related to public health where in that field there is no competition for ideas. In economics, there is healthy debate on issues of all types -- methodology, empirical outcomes, and policy. When I look at the public health area, i see that everyone agrees, especially on the policy implications (and so many people are really unnecessary). Milton Friedman would be the first person to support competition in the market place for ideas.

Milton Friedman would be the last person to support competition in the market place for ideas.

"The stated ground of opposition is that naming the Institute after Friedman would constitute the University's endorsement of his political views..."



Milton Friedman's alma mater, Rutgers University, has named more than one building, if memory serves, after Paul Robeson. I don't recall anyone protesting that this might constitute the university's endorsement of some of Robeson's more controversial political views (e.g. his support of Stalin). I wonder if the Rutgers community would protest if the university proposed naming something after Friedman.

"The stated ground of opposition is that naming the Institute after Friedman would constitute the University's endorsement of his political views..."



Milton Friedman's alma mater, Rutgers University, has named more than one building, if memory serves, after Paul Robeson. I don't recall anyone protesting that this might constitute the university's endorsement of some of Robeson's more controversial political views (e.g. his support of Stalin). I wonder if the Rutgers community would protest if the university proposed naming something after Friedman.

Having worked at The U of C for 15 years, I know that "the university" will turn on anyone regardless of accomplishment or fame if his/her position or status is not aligned with the university's view of itself. Good luck Milton!

Judge Posner, count me as one of the potential donors that you predict would be offended by the university taking Friedman's name off the institute. Having faculty members like Friedman (and Becker and Posner) is what has induced me to contribute to the university for many years.

I thought the tiresome Pinochet business was dead and buried long ago, especially after Friedman explained it in great detail in Two Lucky People. How naive I am!

I remember how Friedman used to have an open question and answer session once a year or so when I was a student there in the early 70's, a very politically charged time. I remember one session in particular, when a group of SDS students turned up to shout him down. Are they now UC faculty members?

I hope the university shows the same respect for its public that Friedman showed that night - he ignored the name-calling and answered the serious objections to his views with logic and his usual good-natured enthusiasm. In this case, the logic is that the university is honoring a faculty member who arguably brought it more honor and presige throughout the world than any other in its history.

While I'm waltzing down memory lane, Mr. Becker, I'd like to add that Friedman was the best teacher I ever had too (I never had a course with you, though - my mistake!).

One additional thought that just occurred to me. I once heard Friedman say that universities sell two products, education and monuments, the latter being the professorships, buildings and schools named after contributors. I believe he would feel very honored that in this case the university is giving away a very big monument - if, that is, the administration has the guts to stand its ground.

One has to be wary of monuments and the power to erect them as Shelley wrote in his poem Ozymandias:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away

Excellent point Jim! Also, institutions that survive long enough seem to eventually evolve into something diametrically opposed to their founders. Mainstream religions have certainly evolved with the times. I am sure that the catholic church, if it survives will eventually embrace atheism as the "true" message.

Jim, prey or pray tell pleeeeeese...what is the U of C view of itself? Thank you.

It's sad that every naming has to be so politically controversial or economically motivated. Also sad that so many people get upset over the name of the institute. If it was the Karl Marx institute than the outrage would be justified.

دردشة صوتية

____

دليل دردشات

شات صوتي
___

دليل مواقع الانترنت

العاب بنت ابوي
___

منتديات بنت

صور بنت

دردشة صوتية

شات صوتي

US-Bankensektor:
von Raivo Pommer-Eesti-raimo1@hot.ee

Die Finanzkrise treibt die einst weltgrößte Bank Citigroup in die Arme des Staates. Angesichts neuer überraschender Milliardenlöcher wird der taumelnde Finanzriese teilverstaatlicht. Die US-Regierung weitet ihren Anteil als künftig größter Aktionär auf bis zu 36 Prozent aus.

Die Märkte reagierten am Freitag auf den historischen Schritt in der US-Bankenbranche mit Entsetzen: Die Citi-Aktie stürzte fast ins Bodenlose und riss die Märkte weltweit mit. Der Eingriff des Staates heizte die Spekulationen weiter an, welches US-Institut als nächstes womöglich sogar komplett von der Regierung übernommen werden könnte.

Die Krise der Citigroup beschleunigte sich nochmals dramatisch: Für 2008 gab sie am Freitag überraschend neue Wertberichtigungen von 9,6 Milliarden Dollar (7,5 Mrd Euro) vor Steuern bekannt. Damit liegt der Rekordverlust für das vergangene Jahr mit nun 27,7 Milliarden Dollar noch einmal um knapp die Hälfte höher als kürzlich verkündet. Schon bisher zählte die Bank zu den weltweit größten Verlierern der Finanzkrise.

i dont see why they should back down, they've done nothing wrong and a hell of a lot of history and tradition to stand by,although we all evolve and adapt there is the brand name to consider and i think it would be a loss to change this, when the arguments would disapear with time.

قطر كام
شات صوتي

ABS: what's incoherent? Fairness and decency? Well, since you posted, I think we've (1) had an election for fairness and decency and (2) a stunning proof of what excessive narrowness, and coherence bought at the price of truth, can lead us in the credit crisis.

I think, ABS, that the liberal professors would not even propose a Milton Keynes institute. However, if they did so, it would be on the basis that Keynes, unlike the monetarist Friedman, has not been thoroughly discredited.

The fact that the "dismal science" is not a science is proven by the fact that while you have a Max Planck Institute, and you could have an Al Einstein Institute, you could not have an Adam Smith Institute or a Karl Marx Institute without announcing committments to ideology outside of your discipline.

Therefore, economists would be well-advised not to wash this particular piece of very dirty laundry in public.

Einstein's results work outside of history no matter what. Friedman's don't, and what's more, he didn't claim they did; Friedman merely noticed that in 1981, screwing around with the money supply could produce a mini-depression and Whip Inflation Then. But now, doing so is pushing on a string.

Keynes failed to anticipate that redistribution would be gamed in a mixed capitalist/socialist economy so as to impoverish the socialist part, since in their role as capitalist actors, people would naturally exploit the socialism (working as well as collection welfare, for example).

Keynes failed to anticipate British "bloody-mindedness": the drive by union members to maximize their pay packets in a society in which the greengrocer and the landlord had to be paid, and in which National Health was being cut back.

Hayek foresaw this and announced as a General Law that planning an economy would never work, for two reasons: (1) the costs of coordination would overwhelm the planners in all cases and (2) coordination would be gamed, even in a pure socialist economy, in self-interest.

To my knowledge, Hayek, with an Austrian school excess respect for brute facts, was unable to prove (1) or (2). (1) may have been a result of the primitive state of office technology in his day and no "proof" of (2) exists: in fact, counterexamples exist, such as Lancashire weavers supporting the North in the American Civil War.

Whereas Marx made the claim that over history, productive forces would evolve, and may yet be right. He'd deserve a Karl Marx Institute were he so.

A Milton Friedman Skewl of Economix is ideological, as ideological as a Marx undt Engels Hochschule fur der Sozial-Forschung. Best to give economics institutes neutral names, or even cute names (Hello Kitty Institute) until you boys figure it all out.

i dont see why they should back down, they've done nothing wrong and a hell of a lot of history and tradition to stand by,although we all evolve and adapt there is the brand name to consider and i think it would be a loss to change this, when the arguments would disapear with time.

Ancient China printing was invented hundreds years ago.

شات

شات صوتي

Bnat cam بنات كام شات صوتي دردشه صوتيه بنت كام شات دردشه

شات صوتي

دردشة صوتيه

منتدى بنات كام

العاب بنات كام

شات

شات كتابي

I'm sure some middle ground can be found on naming issues. You can't not include Friedman somehow.

Yes, this is a nice website, I like it very much
http://www.zuneconverter.net

In terms of impact, Milton Friedman was no less influential than Karl Marx of the last century.

But, in terms of human progress, neither can be idolized for their aptitude in converting human capital into profits, since neither approached economy from a localized perspective as to what was best for the ordinary man on the street, the backbone of life, and how progress and innovation either helps to create greater opportunity, or preserves traditional values of enterprise.

From that perspective, both were extremists, helping to justify to management the utilitarian motive in economics without giving just credibility to the purpose of humankind and how human society is optimized vs utilized.

thanks
دردشة.