Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Patinkin, Johnson, and the Shadow of Friedman

Patinkin, Johnson, and the Shadow of Friedman History of Political Economy 32:4 (2000) at it. . . . I shall certainly be disappointed if someone doesn’t write a rejoinder to it.”1 Some of his opponents reacted more strongly than perhaps he had bargained for. Toward the end of the “monetarist decade” (1975–84), David Hendry and Neil Ericsson presented an explosive critique of Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s Monetary Trends (1982). Titled “Assertion without Empirical Basis,” they concluded that Friedman and Schwartz’s “assertions” were “devoid of credibility. . . . rigorous evaluation of empirical claims seems a necessary first step towards taking the con out of economics” (1983, 82; 1991). The London Guardian of 15 December 1983 reported the Hendry and Ericsson paper under the title “Monetarist’s guru ‘distorts his evidence.”’ Friedman was incensed and wrote to Hendry requesting that he disown the account in the Guardian. But Hendry replied that “if your assertion is true that newspapers have produced ‘a spate of libellous and slanderous’ articles ‘impugning Anna Schwartz’s and [your] honesty and integrity’ then you must have ready recourse to a legal solution” (letter from Hendry to Friedman, 13 July 1984, quoted in Hammond 1996, 199). Friedman’s star rose to spectacular heights following his successful http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png History of Political Economy Duke University Press

Patinkin, Johnson, and the Shadow of Friedman

History of Political Economy , Volume 32 (4) – Dec 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/patinkin-johnson-and-the-shadow-of-friedman-f2ZesDLlhu
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2000 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0018-2702
eISSN
1527-1919
DOI
10.1215/00182702-32-4-733
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

History of Political Economy 32:4 (2000) at it. . . . I shall certainly be disappointed if someone doesn’t write a rejoinder to it.”1 Some of his opponents reacted more strongly than perhaps he had bargained for. Toward the end of the “monetarist decade” (1975–84), David Hendry and Neil Ericsson presented an explosive critique of Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s Monetary Trends (1982). Titled “Assertion without Empirical Basis,” they concluded that Friedman and Schwartz’s “assertions” were “devoid of credibility. . . . rigorous evaluation of empirical claims seems a necessary first step towards taking the con out of economics” (1983, 82; 1991). The London Guardian of 15 December 1983 reported the Hendry and Ericsson paper under the title “Monetarist’s guru ‘distorts his evidence.”’ Friedman was incensed and wrote to Hendry requesting that he disown the account in the Guardian. But Hendry replied that “if your assertion is true that newspapers have produced ‘a spate of libellous and slanderous’ articles ‘impugning Anna Schwartz’s and [your] honesty and integrity’ then you must have ready recourse to a legal solution” (letter from Hendry to Friedman, 13 July 1984, quoted in Hammond 1996, 199). Friedman’s star rose to spectacular heights following his successful

Journal

History of Political EconomyDuke University Press

Published: Dec 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.