`  == Milton Friedman etc. ==  I really don't know what I've done or said to produce the attitude you're taking. You can disagree with what I say, although I personally fail to see how any argument can in the end prevent Klein's inclusion in the Friedman article, and I can be mistaken, as I was in my first reading of the Norberg link, but I don't see how you can take things much beyond that. Nothing in my behaviour has necessitated the kind of personal, unprovoked insults with which you've decided to base this discourse. You do know, I'm sure, that personal attacks are entirely against wikipedia policy, and their especially bad form when done repetively and without just cause. You seem to take things fair to literally, or at least bizarrely you have decided to take that approach. I don't mean literally that people regard Friedman as a god, and having to explain that feels rather odd but I've decided to assume good faith as opposed to the more likely probability that you decided just to be awkward and provocative in your discourse. It is simply that a large number of economists and right-wingers regard Friedman as something similiar to god, infallible and above normal human standards. If its not Friedman, than its classical economics as a whole, which is apparently beyond any external critique. That, I believe, explains much of the absense of any proper criticism of Friedman on what in other respects is a fairly extensive article.  Regarding Klein, you simply don't have a point here, its as basic as that. It it not the place of Wikipedia to judge what is ``right`` in any particular set of affairs, but to record those opinions which are notable. Klein is a best-selling and well-regarded writer with a reputation for fairly good research, her book was generally fairly widely praised and her criticism of Friedman is one of the most well-known in the contemporary world. It also covers far, far more than Chile. That cannot be dismissed because just because Friedman's supports or, for example, a paper by an institute that is itself the target of criticism from her book. As such, the rights and wrongs of Norberg's critique are fairly irrelevent. Although it could of course be included as a counter to Klein's criticism within the Friedman article, there is no case for using it to justify the actual exclusion of Klein's views. Now I know that a lot of Friedmanite/Friedmanesque etc. economists like to believe that there ``laws`` of economics are a watertight and natural science and as such they are immune to any criticism that isn't likewise ``scientificic``, and that presumably hold the same assumptions, but most people disagree.  Just to keep you happy, I'll discuss it briefly here. It has some very good points; for example Norberg convincingly shows there was a free-market trend towards the end of the century that goes beyond Klein's explanations (although the actual area of discussionof Klein's book were the far rarer, radical, fundamentalist reforms of the period, but more on that in a minute), he convincingly argues against Klein's account of events in Argentina and (mea culpa) China, his ridicule of Klein's ``Shock!Shock!Shock!`` metaphor which I myself found unconvincing (as opposed to most her narrative and arguments) is fairly accurate and he makes a strong defence, in many cases, of Friedman. But his 20-page article is itselfcontains so many of of its semi-accuracies, disingenuous argument and near-falsehoods as to make any suggestion that it ``proves`` Klein wrong, or even significantly weakens much of her basic arguments, completely ludicrous. I'll just list in no propersome of them since I don't have the time to do anything much else.  *He says she portrays the Chicago School as a place that brainwashed its students, as opposed to it actually being famously open to discussion, whereas actually she gives quite a significant account of its openness to disussion.  *This one's just basic commone sense; he says Klein's Friedman crisis quote isn't from any important paper but a preface to Capitalism and Freedom; the preface to the guysmost important book, he defining manifesto, isn't significant? Tell that to Friedrich Engels.  *He says that Friedman gave the same advice to the Soviet Union, China and Yugoslavia, ``yet nobody would claim he was a communist``, well Klein mentioned this herself, not claiming he was a communist, but using it as an additional example of his somewhat undemocratic outlook. *His suggestion that the military was in control of the economy at the beginnning and the Chicago Boys didn't have control  until later on is simply false. While Pinochet accelerating his reforms as things went along, while the military held ministerial positions and while some statist tendencies naturally held on some level as they always will; Norberg is really here just selecting any facts he can that might appear disprove Klein's account. The coup was indeed a neoliberal one; orchestrated by US and internal Chilean economic interests with the prior support of the Chicago Boys. From the start the Chicago Boys served as the junta's economic advisors, despite being at the intellectual fringes at the time (having lost, as Klein describes, the intellectual argument of the Chile, very much contrary to the Chicago myth), and Pinochet was implementing radical free market reforms.  *Norberg makes a passionate argument for the good name of Milton Friedman, portraying him as a democrat who cared deeply about people's lives. While naturally ther are quotes likely to be found in which he expresses concern for people's suffering and makes a strong defence of democracy (he would be unlikely to get very far in liberal-democratic cultures without doing this), it is simply the case that Friedman put the fundamentals ahead of democracy or at the very least short-term human wellbeing. In one Friedman quote from Klein's book that Norberg chooses not to dissect, he describes Hong Kong as freer than the United States even though it has no political freedom, clearly showing that he regarded economic freedom as pre-eminent. Additionally, Friedman was extremely well aware that the economic policies he pushed would cause and cause immense suffering among elements of any population, regardless of whether he ``cared`` for them or not. Norberg also fails to mention Friedman's response of ``sily question`` to a Chilean press question regarding the social effects of his policies.  *His statistics claiming to show that free-market countries are more democratic than others or that people support free-market economics, for example the Freedom House Comparisons and Pew Research Poll, somewhat misses the point. Put simply he's completely simplifying matters.  Nowhere does Klein dispute that dictatorships are often likely to be interventionist; for a start that helps corrupt politicians increase their power and wealth, and communism, as Klein herself points out, relies on dictatorship even more than radical free market economics. As for the Pew poll, well its findings are absolutely to have been expected. ``Free market`` is a very ambiguous term, and often interpreted as some form of capitalist economy, to which there is a general popular consensus, and Klein herself supports a capitalist economy of sorm form, all be it a social-democratic one. The point is that people have resisted radical free market reforms of the kind Friedman advocated, which are only properly introduced through coercion or crisis. And incidentally on the narrower scale of market liberal democracies the less ``economical free`` ones (e.g. Scandinavia) have the highest democracy and general freedom ratings. *As a second leg of this point, Norberg says Klein doesn't talk about liberalization in democracies ``like Iceland, Ireland, Estonia, Australia or the United States during the 1980s``, and that her discussion of the liberalization in the UK under Thatcher doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Well for a start, it is true, that there has been an intriguing rightward trend among the western populations in recent decades, that goes far deeper than economics (e.g far more radical changes on attitudes to things like crime and immigration and, in the US though not elsewhere, religion). Norberg also neglects to see that many of these examples either weren't as radical as he suggests or that it doesn't fit in with Klein's thesis. As Klein herself points out in the very first chapter, none of these reform was capable of being anything like as radical as, for example, Pinochet's were. Thatcher and Reagan, for all their free-market zeal, were unable to significantly attack the state's role in things like education, healthcare and social security. Many of these governments were elected in spite of their liberal economic policy and John Howard, for example, had to modify his economic positions to get elected in 1996 and was defeated last year largely because his economic policies went too far (though still not as far as Friedman would advise). Ireland's ``transformation`` in the sense described by Norberg didn't even happen, all that happened was that it never developed a proper welfare state to begin with because it didn't industrialise with the rest of Europe. Estonia was undergoing the same transition as every other post-communist country and fits with the shock doctrine. The US does somewhat to, Reagan having been elected, despite serious concerns people had about him personally and some of his policies, in a specific period of crisis in the US regarding its economy but more importantly its international strength and security. Regarding Thatcher he fails to mention that she deliberately encouraged and manipulated the Falklands crisis, that the miners' strikes were initiatated by provocative government actions and that public opinion was played by one of the most atrocious examples of widespread media 