Home / Federal Reserve / How Keynesians Hijacked Milton Friedman’s Helicopter
Print Friendly and PDF

How Keynesians Hijacked Milton Friedman’s Helicopter

Written by Gary North on January 11, 2013

Gary North’s Reality Check

Milton Friedman was very smart and a great debater. I knew him. I liked him. But he was no different from other very clever fellows. When he got something conceptually wrong, he was dangerous.

My professor of apologetics at seminary was Cornelius Van Til. Apologetics is the philosophical defense of the Christian faith. Van Til was every bit as smart as Friedman. He had a bunch of great metaphors in his arsenal of rhetoric. My favorite was the buzz saw metaphor. He said this: “You can sharpen a buzz saw all you want, but if it is set at the wrong angle, it will never cut straight.”

Milton Friedman’s “buzz saw” on monetary theory was always set at a crooked angle. It never cut straight.

He described the distribution of fiat money in terms of a metaphor: a helicopter full of paper money. It drops this money on the population below. He used this metaphor in a chapter titled “The Mystery of Money.” It is chapter 2 in his 1994 book, Money Mischief. His goal for the chapter was to show that this free money from the sky, if it continues, will raise prices. He introduced the metaphor on page 29. (For the moment, you can read the chapter here. But Web pages come and go.)

What the metaphor does not show is what Austrian School monetary theory emphasizes: the new money is introduced at specific points in the economy. It is spent into circulation by the national government, which sells its IOUs to the official counterfeiter: the central bank. The national government gets first access to this money. It then spends it. The recipients of this government spending get access to the newly created money earlier than other citizens do. So, prices in general do not rise uniformly. They may not rise at all if overall economic production increases. What always rises is government spending. This fact, not the general price effects of counterfeit money, is the heart of any accurate analysis of central bank money. It is discussed in detail only by Austrian School economists.

Friedman never admitted that this process of sequential spending is relevant. He, like his intellectual mentor Irving Fisher, self-consciously rejected the Austrians’ analytical approach. What is this approach? The approach of the script of All the Presidents’ Men: “Follow the money.”

Ludwig von Mises refuted Fisher’s 1911 book on monetary theory in Mises’ 1912 book, The Theory of Money and Credit. Fisher never responded explicitly to Mises. Their respective disciples did battle. Murray Rothbard repeatedly critiqued Friedman on this same point. Friedman never responded explicitly to Rothbard.

His helicopter metaphor became a powerful rhetorical tool to persuade others of his arguments against free-market pricing. He always said he preferred free-market pricing. But there was always this glaring exception: the pricing of money. He spent his career trying to undermine the legitimacy of the idea of free market money (gold coins) and a price system based on it. He became a public figure with his 1961 book, Capitalism and Freedom. Chapter 3 is on money. It begins with a rejection of the gold coin standard.


From the beginning, Keynesians loved his metaphor of the helicopter full of paper money. Why? Because that metaphor portrayed the central bank as a supplier of free goods. They understood what the Austrian School economists understand: The national government gets to sell its IOUs at a lower rate of interest to the central bank than the private investors who cannot legally create money out of nothing. This lets the government spend more money than it collects from taxes and loans from the private sector. Here is the law of economics: When the price of something is reduced, more of it is demanded. Fiat money issued by a central bank therefore allows the government to buy more power and influence in the overall economy. Central bank fiat money subsidizes the national government.

Keynesians believe that government can and should increase its purchase of goods and services. Friedman always said that the government shouldn’t be allowed to do this very often, and only on an efficient basis (e.g., school vouchers). But he ignored the obvious: fiat money lowers the government’s cost of issuing IOUs. This means that the central bank provides lower-cost power and influence for the government. The government demands more of this money at artificially low interest rates, because it expands the range of government operations.

This was the heart of his analytical error all his life. This error has played well among Keynesians. They see the greatest benefit of the central bank as providing “free extra money” for government spending.

(To read the rest of my article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

3 thoughts on “How Keynesians Hijacked Milton Friedman’s Helicopter

  1. I don't get the LRC and Mises.org war on Milton Friedman. He had particular views on monetary policy. He opposed the Federal Reserve. He often called for its dissolution. Let's not mistake his views as being aligned with those of the Keynesians though, that's simply a load of BS.

    Now, let's consider the LRC and Mises.org crowd. They have particular views on monetary policy. They oppose the Federal Reserve and often call for its dissolution. They've spent the past hundred years trying bring about a radical change in monetary policy. But they have failed miserably in that mission.

    So, tell me again why Friedman was such a terrible person? Because he advocated monetary policy that was never taken up by the US govt? And why is the LRC and Mises.org crowd so superior? Because they advocate monetary policy that has never been taken up by the US govt?

    Let's ask a different question. Who actually brought more freedom-loving people into the argument? I think it's fair to say that both sides have greatly expanded the argument for freedom and smaller govt. And yet Milton Friedman is constantly hung out to dry as if he was Paul Krugman. Stop wasting your time trying to tear down the reputation of one of history's great advocates of liberty. There are plenty of real Keynesians doing great harm everywhere…focus your energies on them.

  2. Freidman advocated government theft through inflation. The Misesians do not. That is the root of the divide. Do you promote theft or oppose it? If start out wrong on something so fundamental, it is certain to show up as more errors in other areas. Misesians start with first principles and derive their economic theory from them. Friedman's theories never posed a serious threat to the growth of the state, just a slight inconvenience, as he wanted to limit the growth of the money supply to a certain percent each year, but not stop it. Theft was OK in his book, if done a little bit at a time.

  3. Let's don't get bogged down in quibbling about doctrine. Hair-splitting is for academics; our purpose is to try to understand how we got into this government swamp. In retrospect, one can see how the good intentions (I will stipulate for purposes of discussion) have been undermined by "externalities" invisible to policy makers.
    One thing I find fascinating is how much truth can shine in the so-called "a priori" axiom. Very often we refer to this insight as "common sense." But, in the meantime, we indulge ourselves with arcane mathematics and statistical mumbo-jumbo, which merely serves to obfuscate rather than clarify. We resort to the technocratic rather than the principled…
    One question might provide a starting point: let's ask—how the heck did we get into this mess (can we all agree we are in one?)