Introduction –As single leaders in modern economic thought and attitude. economic experts Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes was hailed and criticized by many different persons and establishments because of their part to planetary economic system attitudes every bit good as because of the sometimes really extremist ways that the two required of economic leaders to fall back to so that they can follow the economic theoretical account that either Friedman and Keynes designed.

Both are right and incorrect when it comes to understanding economic system and supplying a solution which can be used to unlock the enigmas of the altering economic quandary that the universe experiences which requires the input of economic experts. And during their clip. Friedman and Keynes enjoyed the god-like loft from which they stood. one at a clip. when the universe was bowing to the economic ideas that they made.

Similarities: Friedman and Keynes economic ideas meet in the center– While Friedman’s and Keynes’ ideas and concentrate on economic sciences have built-in differences. some perceivers believe that the two economic thoughts espoused by Friedman and Keynes besides have some similarities. For one. the two economic experts and their thoughts are in understanding when it comes to the stable growing rate of money supply and its function in fluctuation and employment [ 1 ] .

Besides. the two were inherently economic expert in disposition – they stand on similar evidences even if it means delving and edifice that land utilizing different shovels and different shots. Second. the economic thoughts of the two persons portion the similar characterisitcs of being popular and widely used and regarded before the resulting alteration in political landscape made the thought of disused and useless ; for Keynes and his economic thought about the function of the province in economic leading. the blossoming of his thought came after the universe. peculiarly the US. felt the squeezing to the economic system after the two universe wars and the happening of the Great Depression. his thought finally subsiding by the clip the universe came closer and closer to the 80s.

For Friedman. his economic thought got its bend after it proved holding the solution to the job the Keynes theoretical account can non reply. and after basking his minute in the limelight for some old ages. the planetary crisis that engulfed the universe pushed Friedman’s thoughts closer and closer to the rubbish bin. Friedman and Keynes and their thoughts portion the similar gait when it comes to public credence. every bit good as the same feature that their thoughts each are pets of US presidents ; former US president Richard Nixon was a Keynesian while another former US president. Ronal Reagan implemented a Friedman attack in economic sciences [ 2 ] .

Another similarity in the economic thought of Friedman and Keynes is that their thoughts allowed for the designation of an entity or establishment or thought that was the ground for the failure of the economic system. Take for illustration the Great Depression. for those adhering to the Keynesian belief in economic sciences. they are inclined to believe that there is person or something at mistake why such happening happened. and that is the thought of free market. Friedman thought will besides take the single towards the same belief of holding person or something at mistake. and that is the Federal Reserve. so far as Friedman economic thought is concerned.

Another similarity shared by Keynes and Friedman and their onslaught and form in developing economic idea and guaranting the audience needed for the constitution of the popularity and credence of their peculiar economic idea is the mode by which their economic ideas and thoughts were built and spread around those who will either knock or encompass it.

Wood ( 1991 ) explained. “The most surprising facet of Friedman’s accomplishments is that he has non to a greater extent earned the gratitude of the profession. To a big grade this is due to the aggressively critical signifier in which he has presented his thoughts. ” [ 3 ]

In his onslaughts on the places of other he has at times tended to go from the more careful and restrained manner in which he typically presents his ain consequences. This has assured him of a broad audience. because it is frequently easier to pull disciples to a revolution in believing – even a counter-revolution – than to a less dramatic development of a hypothesis. This is a characteristic which Friedman portions with Keynes and explains why both have been at the same clip extremely controversial and extremely successful in the development of economic idea.

Economists in a head-on hit –Despite the similarities found in Friedman and Keynes and their ideas and the tempo and societal credence lifetime of their thoughts. Friedman and Keynes and their thoughts in economic systems are more recognized. criticized and reviewed because of how the two thoughts find contrasting points against the other. They and their thoughts have important differences that they are described sometimes as the great polarizers of the economic system and the economic belief and attitude.

For Friedman. Keynes was wrong about the thought of the province and its active function in ordering the economic system. For Friedman. the more suited solution is for the province to cognize that its function in the economic system is focused on guaranting the growing of money supply. Friedman stressed the importance of pecuniary policy versus the thought of Keynes and the function of province disbursement. Friedman besides challenged the mode by which Keynes explained the behaviour of the consumer particularly during the instances of rising prices and the resulting unemployment [ 4 ] .

The Keynes-Friedman Showdown– While it is apprehensible how there will be strictly separate groups that support the ideas of Keynes and the economic thought of Friedman. there are cases that the two modern twenty-four hours economic minds figure in colossal confrontations ( which is non of their making. of class. but the making of other people and establishments peculiarly award giving organic structures that set out to place who is the best between the two ) . An illustration of these cases is the during the clip globally popular and extremely well-thought-of hebdomadal slick magazine TIME undertook the undertaking of calling the receiver of the Economist of the Century award to wrap up the terminal of the 20th century [ 5 ] .

Skousen ( 2001 ) wrote about how the members of the choosing group were torn between Friedman and Keynes. and how Friedman finally bested Keynes despite the fact that some TIME magazine staff. including editor in head Norman Pearlstine. believed that the award should travel to Keynes. Pearlstine believed that the mode by which Keynes articulated the importance of free markets every bit good as the significance of the undue authorities intercession that will fall back to the creative activity of danger in the economic landscape [ 6 ] is an of import modern twenty-four hours economic thought that will profit non merely one state but the universe. particularly now that the universe is sing planetary trade and economic sciences.

Cambridge University in 1970. during the clip Friedman faced a extremely partizan. pro Keynes crowd who rooted for their favourite Nicholas Kaldor which Friedman soundly defeated during the argument [ 7 ] . Some would state that the surprising Friedman win in that peculiar argument ( which silenced the mutter crowd of heathens ) was due mostly because of the absence of Keynes himself. but it may besides indicate to the fact that Friedman and his economic ideals holds true in some facets.

Decision– Many bookmans. critics. new economic experts. political analysts and historiographers until now continually debate about the similarities and differences of Keynes and Friedman and their economic thoughts. More significantly. they debated about how each economic expert and each thought they gave to the universe helped in determining universe economic system as it is today. Some say that Milton was unlike Friedman. while some think they are the same. Some believe that Friedman was better than Keynes. while others feel otherwise. Others go to the extreme. sing that the two lived in an interrelated life. that one completes the other. as DeLong believes that Friedman was non a rival to Keynes. but more of the adult male that completed Keynes [ 8 ] .

The issues and points originating in the argument focused on the individual and their thoughts bring about huge complexness that the terminal is ever difficult to see. predict and achieve. But for the differences of Friedman and Keynes. it is no uncertainty that both economic expert contributed vastly in the field of economic sciences. and because of that. they were showered non merely with official awards but with really blandishing commentaries by critics and perceivers. Mark Blaug was quoted by Skousen in his book as imputing to Friedman and his great ability for debating and contending for his place in economic political orientations [ 9 ] that resulted to his gaining the regard of even his most critical and antecedently unimpressed antagonists.

Skousen ( 2001 ) believes that Friedman is the most celebrated economic expert alive. but he was speedy to counter his proposition by reminding the readers that Friedman was non a giant at first in the circle of economic minds. owing mostly to the fact that Friedman and his economic thoughts ( i. e. his monetarism beliefs ) were to a great extent criticized early in his calling as an economic mind. [ 10 ]

Truly. both Keynes and Friedman created such economic ideals that went to the extent that it became counter with each other. But professionals knew that underneath it all. the more of import thing to see is the fact that the differences and similarities found in Keynes’ and Friedman’s plants gave the universe what it can used to pull off altering economic troubles.

Plants Cited:

DeLong. J Bradford. “Friedman Completed Keynes. ” Undertaking Syndicate. 2006. 23 May 2008

& lt ; World Wide Web. project-syndicate. org & gt ; .

Heuser. Uwe Jean. “The Underrated Power of Economists. ” Indymedia. org. uk. 28 June 2007.

23 May 2008 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. indymedia. org. uk/en/2007/06/374612. hypertext markup language & gt ; .

Macesich. George. “World Economy at the Crossroads. ” Greenwood Publishing Group.

Incorporated. November 1997.

Skousen. Mark. “The Making of Modern Economics: The Lifes and Ideas of the Great

Thinkers. ” Sharpe. Me. . Inc. . March 2001.

Wood. John Cunningham. “Milton Friedman: Critical Assessments” Vol. 14. Taylor & A ;

Francis. Inc. . August 1990.

[ 1 ] Macesich. George. “World Economy at the Crossroads. ” Greenwood Publishing Group.

Incorporated. November 1997. p. 12.

[ 2 ] Heuser. Uwe Jean. “The Underrated Power of Economists. ” Indymedia. org. uk. 28 June 2007.

23 May 2008 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. indymedia. org. uk/en/2007/06/374612. hypertext markup language & gt ; .

[ 3 ] Wood. John Cunningham. “Milton Friedman: Critical Assessments” Vol. 14. Taylor & A ;

Francis. Inc. . August 1990. p. 465.

[ 4 ] Heuser. Uwe Jean. “The Underrated Power of Economists. ” Indymedia. org. uk. 28 June 2007.

23 May 2008 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. indymedia. org. uk/en/2007/06/374612. hypertext markup language & gt ; .

[ 5 ] Skousen. Mark. “The Making of Modern Economics: The Lifes and Ideas of the Great

Thinkers. ” Sharpe. Me. . Inc. . March 2001. pg 379.

[ 6 ] Ibid.

[ 7 ] Skousen. pg 380.

[ 8 ] DeLong. J Bradford. “Friedman Completed Keynes. ” Undertaking Syndicate. 2006. 23 May 2008

& lt ; World Wide Web. project-syndicate. org. hypertext transfer protocol: //webdiary. com. au/cms/ ? q=node/1757 & gt ; .

[ 9 ] Skousen. p. 380

[ 10 ] Ibid.