# data[].attributes.body
Friedrick Hayek:
Greetings, Mr. Friedman, I see you have come up with many interesting and considerable theories involving monetary policy, I actually do not believe in the enactment of these policies in the market to improve economic growth. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. Free markets as themselves operate at the highest efficiency and are best at allocating resources effectively. Expansionary monetary policies cause investment to be artificially high, significantly increasing inflation. In a free market, consumers will only demand the goods and services they truly want, and suppliers will supply based on this demand. Artificial investments can cause money to be injected in the parts of the economy that are not truly beneficial and desired by the general public. Best, F. A. Hayek

Reply:
Hello, Mr.Hayek. I understand some of the risks that come with the use of monetary expansionary policy, but as stated before, I believe in a steady growth rate of the money supply (controlled by the central bank) that's reflective of the current economy that aims not for an increase in inflation but a deflation rate of 4% (this is known as the Friedman Rule) I believe that although there may be a risk in monetary policies leading to a volatile economy there are many effective countermeasures to this problem. When compared to the risks posed form fiscal policy (ie. crowding out and higher taxation) monetary policy can be argued to be the most beneficial and safest route for an economy to stimulate growth.
Paul Krugman:

Hello, Mr. Friedman. As a Keynesian economist myself, I take issue with your views on his holiness, John Maynard Keynes. As a proponent of monetarism, you believe that monetary policy is a more effective government tool at managing the economy. On this, I have to make two rebuttals. The first is that due to your inexperience with deep recessions like JM Keynes experienced during the Great Depression or me during the Crash of 2008, you have never experienced the ineffective nature of monetary policy during deep recessions. This is because, after all, when the economy is in the waste basket, people lack the confidence to spend and increase AD to get the economy moving again. Moreover, monetary policy takes an insanely long time to go into effect compared to fiscal policy. When the elasticity of demand for investment is really low, it can take forever for monetary policies to take effect. Regards, Paul Krugman.

Reply:
Hello, Mr.Krugman. As a hard headed believer in the Keynesian view of economics, I see why you have such firm beliefs for the effectiveness of fiscal policies as a means of stabilization for an economy. However, as I have stated in my 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association, there are too many questions about the current economic environment (during a recession) for policy makers to quickly come up with policies to be implemented in to the economy which makes fiscal policies ineffective. It is my firm belief that an economy will always self-stabilize in the long run and the best way for us to achieve macroeconomic stabilization is through the use of an "unconditional" policy rule, something like my very famous k-percent money growth rule. Sincerely, Milton

Janet Yellen:

Good evening, Mr. Friedman! First of all, I would like to say that I definitely agree with you when it comes to raising interest rates. I, too, believe that the Fed should raise rates in order to prevent inflation from rising out of control, even if that inflation is not yet apparent in the data. While you could say that I'm a "dove" and I'm not usually one to advocate raising interest rates, I have to say that in order to prevent rising inflation, raising interest rates is the right thing to do. In addition, I agree with you about the fact that monetary policy takes a long time to fully enact and so the results are not immediate. Therefore, just like you have said, I think that because it is not possible to immediately know what will happen when a change in monetary policy occurs, we must make forecasts and therefore choose what policies to enact and when, based off those forecasts. Best, Janet

Reply:
Dear Ms.Yellen, It is so great to see another like minded economist who truly understands the ins and outs of macroeconomics.I am very glad to see that you have casted off the naive keynsian views and have been enlightened in the same way that I have. Perhaps we could talk more along this subject over some drinks? Cheers, Milton

Raghuram Rajan:

Greetings, Mr. Friedman. It is great to see an economist who supports monetary policies as much as I do! After all, without central banks to control the money supply and step in when the economy is spiralling, there would not be steady growth. I would know - I'm governor of India's central bank. Though we appear to have much in common, I take offense at you calling Keynesian theories "naive". I myself was heavily influenced by Keynes, though less by the actual fiscal policies and more by his liberal stance. I'm somewhat of a political economist, and I strongly advocate that governments tackle the problem of inequality through taxing the rich and increasing expenditures on welfare programs - in other words, fiscal policy. I must ask what your stance regarding this issue is.

Sincerely, Raghuram Rajan

Reply:
Hello, Mr.Rajan. Allow me to introduce you to one of my very famous quotes about income inequality; "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." You see I myself am unconcerned about income inequality in the free-market, as stated in some of my most famous books "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to Choose" there are three reasons why. The first being that some degree of inequality is actually healthy and desirable in any well functioning economic system. The second being that income inequality is something that is unavoidable in a well functioning economy because without a difference in pay gap there will be no incentive for workers. The third and final being that the actual degree of income inequality observed in economies is actually much lower than expected.The inequality as I see it will drive workers to work harder and hone their craft, inequality will always exist especially when we talk about the opportunities a child may receive. Children of wealth parents will obviously be at an advantage against those of poorer parents and this may eventually cause a greater gap in income inequality, however that's just the nature of any well-functioning economic system. As note by me before "it seems illogical to say that a man is entitled to what he has produced by personal capacities or to the produce of the wealth he has accumulated, but that he is not entitled to pass any wealth on to his children." The problems of income inequality don't really concern me. Cheers,

Piketty:
Hello, Mr. Friedman. I am very sorry but I disagree with your belief of the free market and capitalism. I'm not sure if you've heard of my book (Probs cuz you ded but its g) called "Capital", I basically outline the fact how capitalism is a major cause of leading our world economies into wealth inequality. I outline a theory in which I created where if the rate of return of wealth is greater than the overall growth in the economy it will create wealth inequality. And so far this has been an extreme case with wealth inqueatlity as many of the rich people have their money because of inheritance. This makes it so that the rate of return of wealth increases much more than than the overall growth in the economy.
Many thanks,
Piketty

Reply:
Hello, Mr.Piketty. I would hope that someone of your stature would address someone like me with proper grammar (which is another reason as to why I probably won't be reading your book) but as I have mentioned in my reply to Mr.Rajan, income inequality does not concern me. (In fact, my entire rebuttal can be found in my reply to Mr.Rajan)When you weigh the pros and cons of capitalism, the benefits that come from capitalism far outweigh the income inequality experience by people, especially when income inequality is something that occurs naturally in any well-functioning market. I would hope that you are more specific for which exerts of your book you are referring to with specific reasons as to why you believe capitalism is a major cause for income inequality before even attempting to challenge my ideas.Sincerely, Milton

# data[].attributes.body
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (1976)
Presidential Medal of Freedom (1988)
National Medal of Science (1988)
John Bates Clark Medal (1951)

# data[].attributes.body
I was born on July 31, 1912 in Brooklyn, New York. My wonderful parents Jenő Saul Friedman and Sára Ethel (née Landau) were Jewish emigrants from Beregszász in Carpathian Ruthenia, Kingdom of Hungary (now Berehove in Ukraine). I was the youngest and smartest of my 4 children in the household.

When I was a year old, my family relocated to Rahway, New Jersey. There, my mother opened a dry goods shop and my father was variously employed. Although my family was financially weak, we had enough to eat, and the environment at home was always warm and supportive.

In 1928, I graduated from Rahway High School. Unfortunately, my father had passed away by this time, resulting in the worsening of the financial condition at home. Because of this, if I wanted to study in university I would have to finance it myself. Fortunately, I was awarded a competitive scholarship to Rutgers University. Financing the rest of the expenses, I did odd jobs. I earned my B.A. degree in 1932, majoring in mathematics and economics. Subsequently, I joined the University of Chicago with a scholarship in economics and earned my M.A. degree in 1933. I then went to Columbia University and spent time there studying statistics with my good friend Harold Hotelling. After that I worked at University of Wisconsin. In 1943, I joined the Division of War Research at Columbia University where I spent the rest of World War II working as a mathematical statistician, focusing on problems of weapons design, military tactics, and metallurgical experiments. I got PhD in 1946 then worked at the Universtiy of Chicago for 30 years.

In 1977, at the age of 65, I retired. Despite being retired, I still worked on many projects such as Free to Choose, being an unofficial advisor to Ronald Regan, visited Eastern Europe and China, where I advised the governments. I also wrote many editorials and appeared on TV.

Although my parents are religious, I would describe myself as an agnostic.

My son, David D. Friedman, was born on 1945. What a great year that was.

I died of heart failure at the age of 94 years in San Francisco on November 16, 2006.

Cool life right?

# data[].attributes.body
I was an American economist and statistician best known for my strong belief in free-market capitalism. During my time as professor at the University of Chicago, I developed numerous free-market theories that opposed the views of traditional Keynesian economists.

# data[].attributes.body
Note: Austin used MLA7, Michael used MLA8

Bordo, Michael D., and Hugh Rockoff. THE INFLUENCE OF IRVING FISHER ON MILTON FRIEDMAN’S MONETARY ECONOMICS. N.p.: n.p., 01 Aug. 2011.

Caldwell, Bruce J. "Milton Friedman." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 01 June 2017.

Hetzel, Robert L. “The Contributions of Milton Friedman to Economics.” The Contributions of Milton Friedman to Economics, 2007, pp. 1–30., doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198704324.003.0017. Accessed 3 June 2017.
“Milton Friedman Really Said Higher Wages Make a Nation Prosperous?” Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, Word Press, 18 Dec. 2013, timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/milton-friedman-really-said-higher-wages-make-a-nation-prosperous/. Accessed 3 June 2017.

Kemp, Arthur. “The Free Market Wisdom of Milton Friedman.” The Imaginative Conservative, The Imaginative Conservative, 7 Sept. 2015, www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/09/the-free-market-wisdom-of-milton-friedman.html. Accessed 3 June 2017.

“Milton Friedman.” Econlib, Liberty Fund, Inc, www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html. Accessed 3 June 2017.

"Milton Friedman." Milton Friedman: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 June 2017.

“Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman's Life Story Will Inspire You To Reach For The Stars!” The Famous People, The Famous People, www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/milton-friedman-167.php. Accessed 3 June 2017.

Staff, Investopedia. “Milton Friedman.” Investopedia, Investopedia, LLC, 23 Nov. 2009, www.investopedia.com/terms/m/milton-friedman.asp. Accessed 3 June 2017.

"The Big Picture." The Big Picture: Macro perspective on the capital markets, economy, geopolitics, technology and digital media. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 June 2017.

# data[].attributes.body
Apparently, The Economist described me as "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century ... possibly of all of it." Pretty accurate.

# data[].attributes.body
I have had numerous contributions to economic theory. My first big breakthrough in the field of economics was articulated in my book Theory of the Consumption Function in 1957 on the permanent income hypothesis. My idea was that a household’s consumption and savings decisions are more affected by changes in its permanent income than by income changes that household members perceive as temporary. This permanent income hypothesis provided an explanation for many puzzles that had emerged in the empirical data concerning the relationship between the average and marginal propensities to consume (MPC). My book discussed how if households did not perceive permanent income as changing, they would maintain their established spending patterns.

I also theorized that there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment, and I argued that employment above this rate would cause inflation to accelerate. I thought the Phillips curve was, in the long run, vertical at the "natural rate" and predicted what would come to be known as stagflation.

My best-known contributions are in the realm of monetary economics. Many people regard me as the founder of monetarism. In the 1950s, macroeconomics was dominated by scholars who followed the theories promoted by John Maynard Keynes. I liked to call these “naive Keynesian” theories. The followers of Keynes believed in using government-sponsored policy to counteract the business cycle, and they believed that fiscal policy was more effective than monetary policy in neutralizing the instability of the business cycle and that prices are inherently sticky. I opposed these macroeconomic views with my own economic theory of free-market monetarism. Through this theory, I showed the world the importance of monetary policy. I believed that a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the preferred macroeconomic policy to promote economic growth. I pointed out how the changes in the money supply have real short-term and long-term effects on people and the economy. I also used monetarism to openly contradict the Keynesian principles of the Keynesian multiplier and the Philips curve.

I also argued for many other things such as a volunteer army, abolition of licensing of doctors, education vouchers, legalization of drugs and prostitution, gay rights, among other things.

Over the course of my career, I published pioneering books on the modern economy as well as numerous influential articles, changing the way economics is taught all around the globe. You're welcome world.

# data[].attributes.body
When looking at some of the work I have conducted in the field of economics, many had previously called me ridiculous for defying the not so great Keynesian view of economics. As a student studying economics, I was influenced by the great economist Irving Fisher, who’s work in monetary economics had a huge impact in my own theoretical and empirical work in economics.  Irving Fisher to me is one of the great economists as well as the most notable influence in my line of work, it can be seen that a lot of my views on economics align with those of Irving Fisher. Much like Irving, I developed several proposals for monetary reform, it was Irving’s wide range of major publications that ultimately shaped my view on monetary economics. Truly Majestic.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout my career I have authored many books where I explain some of the most profound truths in economics. The first book I ever coauthored in was in 1945, "Income from Independent Professional Practice" where I had argued that the limited entry in to the medical profession should allow doctors to charge for higher prices. However, I am most noted as being the father of monetarism. Some of my most influential books include, "Capitalism and Freedom

Where I discuss the role of economic capitalism in liberal society, clarifying the differences between economic freedom and political freedom. I argued that economic freedom is a precondition for political freedom and the importance of the government’s role in investing in human capital.

The second influential piece of work that I had published in 1963, titled “A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960.”

Essentially one of my most notable pieces of work, I utilized a historical time series (1867-1960) and economic analyses to argue that monetary policy should control the money supply. Before publishing this novel, monetary forces only played passive roles in the economy and commercial banks alongside the Federal Reserve Bank failed to maintain steady control of the money supply leading to the Depression. The overall thesis of my work was that the money supply has huge effects on the economy, a thesis that is now taken into account time and time again by policy makers.

The third influential work I’d like to mention, published in 1969, titled “ The Definition of Money: Net Wealth and Neutrality as Criteria.” I discuss some of my views of what money is and should be as well as my distaste towards paper currency and monopolies, while also arguing against the misconception that money is neutral in the short run as a result of the money illusion.

Other influential pieces of works are in abundance, a few being “The Monetarist Controversy” (1977) “A Monetary Theory of Nominal Income” (1971) etc.