November 2006


…no comments!

A Nutricidal Codex

By Shannara Johnson

Ever heard of the Codex Alimentarius? If not, don’t be surprised. It’s one of the best-kept “open secrets” of the U.S. government. It’s scheduled to take effect on December 21, 2009, and it may present the greatest disaster for our food supply—and thus for our health—this country has ever seen.

What is the Codex Alimentarius, and how did it come to pass?

In the Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911, a collection of standards and regulations for a wide variety of foods was developed, called the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus. It wasn’t legally binding but served as a useful reference for the courts to determine standards for specific foods.

The post-World War II rebirth of the Codex Alimentarius (or short, Codex), however, is much more dubious. To understand the full implications, we need to go back to the history of one huge conglomerate: The Interessengemeinschaft Farben, or IG Farben—a powerful cartel that consisted of German chemical and pharmaceutical companies such as BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst.

IG Farben was, you could say, the corporate arm of the Third Reich. Having lucrative contracts with Hitler’s regime, IG Farben produced everything from ammunition to Zyklon B, the nerve gas that was used to kill prisoners in the concentration camps. IG Farben was the single largest donor to Hitler’s election campaign… and later the single largest profiteer of World War II.

“Whenever the German Wehrmacht conquered another country, IG Farben followed, systematically taking over the industries of those countries,” states the website of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, a non-profit promoter of natural health. “The U.S. government investigation of the factors that led to the Second World War in 1946 came to the conclusion that without IG Farben the Second World War would simply not have been possible.”

Auschwitz, the largest and most infamous German concentration camp, also benefited IG Farben. New, unsafe pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines were liberally tested on Auschwitz prisoners—many of which died during the tests.

Not surprising, the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal prosecuted 24 IG Farben board members and executives for mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. One of those convicted was Fritz ter Meer, the highest-ranking scientist on the executive board of IG Farben, who was sentenced to seven years in prison (of which he only served four). When asked during trial whether he thought those human experiments had been justified, he answered that “concentration camp prisoners were not subjected to exceptional suffering, because they would have been killed anyway.”

In 1955, ter Meer was reinstated as a member of the supervisory board at Bayer and one year later became its chairman. In 1962, together with other executives of BASF, Bayer and Hoechst, he was one of the main architects of the Codex Alimentarius.

“When he got out of jail, he went to his UN buddies,” said Dr. Rima Laibow, MD, in a passionate speech at the 2005 conference of the National Association of Nutrition Professionals (NANP). “And he said, ‘[…] If we take over food worldwide, we have power worldwide.’”

The result was the creation of a trade commission called the Codex Alimentarius Commission, now funded and run by the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

At its foundation in 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) accepted the standards of the Codex—and by the end of 2009, all member countries of the WTO will be required to implement the Codex, “to harmonize the standards” for the global trade of foods.

In the U.S. meanwhile, Congress passed the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994, which defined vitamins, minerals and herbs as foods, therefore not to be regulated by pharmaceutical standards. The Codex Alimentarius would reverse all that. It would treat those dietary supplements not as foods, but as toxins.

“How do you protect somebody from a poison?” asks Laibow. “You use toxicology. You use a science called ‘risk assessment.’”

Risk assessment, she explains, works as follows. You take the toxin in question, feed it to lab animals and “determine the dose that kills 50% of them. That’s called the LD 50. And you extrapolate what the LD 50 for a human being might be. Then you go down to the other end of the dosage range and you start feeding [little] bits of it to test animals, and you come up with the largest possible dose—the maximum permissible upper limit—that can be fed to an animal before a discernible impact is shown. […] Then you divide that by 100. […] And now you’ve got a safety margin, so you got 1/100 of the largest dose that can be given with no discernible impact.”

In other words, classified as toxins, vitamins, minerals and herbs would only be allowed to be marketed in doses that have no discernible impact on anyone. Then why bother taking them?

And that’s not all. Where our grocery and health food store shelves are now brimming with supplements, only 18 of them would be on the Codex whitelist. Everything not on the list, such as CoQ10, glucosamine, etc. would be illegal—not as in “prescription-only” illegal, but as in “take it and you go to jail” illegal.

But the mandatory requirements of the Codex will not only concern vitamins and minerals, but all foods. Under Codex rules, nearly all foods must be irradiated. And levels of radiation can be much higher than previously permitted.

While irradiated U.S. foods are currently treated with 1 – 7.5 kiloGray of radiation, the Codex would lift its already high limit of 10kiloGray—the equivalent of ca. 330 million chest X-rays—“when necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose,” whatever that may be. Granted, the text says, that the dose of radiation “should not compromise consumer safety or wholesomeness of the food.” Note, however, that it says “should,” not “shall” (an important legal difference, since “should” is not compulsory).

You buy rBST-free milk? Not much longer, because under the Codex all dairy cows will have to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone. All animals used for human consumption will have to be fed antibiotics. Organic standards will be relaxed to include such measures. And did we mention that under the Codex, genetically modified (GM) produce will no longer have to be labeled?

Say good-bye to true organic food, and maybe even food that retains any resemblance of nutritional value.

Moreover, in 2001, twelve hazardous, cancer-causing organic chemicals called POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) were unanimously banned by 176 countries, including the United States. Codex Alimentarius will bring back seven of these forbidden substances—such as hexachlorobenzene, dieldrin, and aldrin—to be freely used again. Permitted levels of various chemicals in foods will be upped as well.

What, are they trying to kill us?

Rima Laibow has done the math, she claims, using figures coming directly from the WHO and FAO. And according to those epidemiological projections, she believes that just the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline alone will result in about 3 billion deaths. “1 billion through simple starvation,” she says. “But the next 2 billion, they will die from the preventable diseases of under-nutrition.”

She calls the new Codex standards “food regulations that are in fact the legalization of mandated toxicity and under-nutrition.”

Even if you’re thinking of emigrating to Thailand or Guatemala to escape this nutritional holocaust, forget it. Once implemented, the Codex Alimentarius will set food safety standards, rules and regulations for over 160 countries, or 97% of the world’s population.

The only way is to fight it before it gets implemented, says Laibow, who is working on just that with a team of lawyers. If you want to help, send an email to your Congressman and/or sign the citizens petition on Laibow’s website, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org.

In his latest commentary for Investor’s Digest of Canada, Sprott Asset Management‘s chief investment strategist, John Embry, describes this fall’s blatantly price-manipulating selling of gold and silver on the commodities exchanges.

But he adds that this selling apparently has not come from the usual central bank sources in Europe.

You can find Embry’s commentary (in glorious pdf)Who’s Selling? Gold Scene Rife with Intrigue” at the Investor’s Digest site… HERE.

Now that’s what I call plain and square talk on gold and silver.
The wise and venerable Mr. Richard Russell puts the (..silver?) chips on the table and calls the Treasury and FED‘s bluff…
..please read on:

” ..I just placed a one dollar bill on my desk, and next to it I placed a hundred dollar bill. What’s the difference between the two bills?

Both bills are composed of the same thing — linen and cotton. So what’s the difference. The difference is the writing on the two bills. Both say they are legal tender “for the payment of all debt, public and private.” The only real difference between the two items is that the Treasury states that one will pay off a dollar of debt while the other will pay off a hundred dollars of debt.

Thus, this nation’s money has been degraded to the point where the writing on a piece of paper tells you what the thing is worth. This is money by government edict or by fiat. Intrinsically, neither bill is worth a damn thing. And ultimately, they’ll both end up as bookmarks or museum pieces.

A measure of a nation’s wealth, historically, can be gauged by the true value of its money. I’ve seen our money change drastically and fundamentally during my short 82 years on this earth. When I was seven years old in 1931 my dad could take his dollars and turn them into a bank for real Constitutional money — gold. The dollar in those days was a call on gold — the dollar was, in fact, “as good as gold.”

After 1933 you could no longer turn in your dollars for gold, although foreign governments could still demand gold for their debts. In 1971 Nixon arbitrarily closed the gold window, because France was continuing to demand gold for settlement of debts. From that day on foreign governments could no longer settle their debts with the US with gold. After 1971 the dollar became a fiat currency, a claim on absolutely nothing.

Today the US government is absurdly split in its attitude towards gold. If gold is just a relic, then why did the US close the gold window and thus prevent foreign governments from calling in any more of our gold? Today, the US hoards its gold. But the US government doesn’t want you to believe that gold is as valuable as the free market suggests that it is. How do I know that? I know it because the Treasury still insists that its own gold is only worth 42.22 dollars an ounce.

Yes, believe it or not, $42.22 an ounce is the price the US places on its entire stock of gold. Why not mark our gold to the market? Oh, the government can’t do that, because that would mean that the US was conceding that the dollar was being devalued — in terms of gold. You see, a rising price for gold in terms of dollars is tantamount to a devaluation of the dollar, and the US government doesn’t want that, or I should say, it doesn’t want that fact to be known. Keep the public dumb and passive, it’s the government’s way.

Over recent years the US Treasury has removed the silver from of our coinage. All our money is now composed of base metals. Recently, the government has even tried to steer people from paper to base-metal dollar coins. The reason — metal coins last longer than “paper dollars.” First we had the Susan B. Anthony metal dollars. Nobody wanted these undersized junk coins, and the mint is still sitting with millions of these klunkers. Next came the faux-gold Sacagawea dollar coins. The Treasury couldn’t give those duds away.

But the geniuses at the Treasury don’t give up easily. The latest scheme by these cone-heads is a series of dollar coins featuring a rotation of deceased Presidents. The new Presidential base-metal dollars will be 9.2% larger than our current junk quarters. The first of the new dollar series will feature George Washington. I can’t wait to see this latest item — maybe I’ll even buy a few, and become a coin collector.

Speaking of precious metals, it’s important to realize that silver is used industrially while this is not the case with gold. All the gold ever mined is probably above ground (except that which has been lost at sea), but silver is actually running at a deficit, meaning more silver is used and used up than is mined annually. The US strategic stock of silver is now gone.

Be that as it may, the ratio of gold to silver has been declining dramatically in waves over the years. The most recent down-wave began in May 2003. At that time an ounce of gold would buy 80.4 ounces of silver. As of yesterday, an ounce of gold would buy 48.04 ounces of silver, a huge drop in the ratio…”

Now that’s what I call plain and square talk on gold and silver.
The wise and venerable Mr. Richard Russell puts the (..silver?) chips on the table and calls the Treasury and FED‘s bluff…
..please read on:

” ..I just placed a one dollar bill on my desk, and next to it I placed a hundred dollar bill. What’s the difference between the two bills?

Both bills are composed of the same thing — linen and cotton. So what’s the difference. The difference is the writing on the two bills. Both say they are legal tender “for the payment of all debt, public and private.” The only real difference between the two items is that the Treasury states that one will pay off a dollar of debt while the other will pay off a hundred dollars of debt.

Thus, this nation’s money has been degraded to the point where the writing on a piece of paper tells you what the thing is worth. This is money by government edict or by fiat. Intrinsically, neither bill is worth a damn thing. And ultimately, they’ll both end up as bookmarks or museum pieces.

A measure of a nation’s wealth, historically, can be gauged by the true value of its money. I’ve seen our money change drastically and fundamentally during my short 82 years on this earth. When I was seven years old in 1931 my dad could take his dollars and turn them into a bank for real Constitutional money — gold. The dollar in those days was a call on gold — the dollar was, in fact, “as good as gold.”

After 1933 you could no longer turn in your dollars for gold, although foreign governments could still demand gold for their debts. In 1971 Nixon arbitrarily closed the gold window, because France was continuing to demand gold for settlement of debts. From that day on foreign governments could no longer settle their debts with the US with gold. After 1971 the dollar became a fiat currency, a claim on absolutely nothing.

Today the US government is absurdly split in its attitude towards gold. If gold is just a relic, then why did the US close the gold window and thus prevent foreign governments from calling in any more of our gold? Today, the US hoards its gold. But the US government doesn’t want you to believe that gold is as valuable as the free market suggests that it is. How do I know that? I know it because the Treasury still insists that its own gold is only worth 42.22 dollars an ounce.

Yes, believe it or not, $42.22 an ounce is the price the US places on its entire stock of gold. Why not mark our gold to the market? Oh, the government can’t do that, because that would mean that the US was conceding that the dollar was being devalued — in terms of gold. You see, a rising price for gold in terms of dollars is tantamount to a devaluation of the dollar, and the US government doesn’t want that, or I should say, it doesn’t want that fact to be known. Keep the public dumb and passive, it’s the government’s way.

Over recent years the US Treasury has removed the silver from of our coinage. All our money is now composed of base metals. Recently, the government has even tried to steer people from paper to base-metal dollar coins. The reason — metal coins last longer than “paper dollars.” First we had the Susan B. Anthony metal dollars. Nobody wanted these undersized junk coins, and the mint is still sitting with millions of these klunkers. Next came the faux-gold Sacagawea dollar coins. The Treasury couldn’t give those duds away.

But the geniuses at the Treasury don’t give up easily. The latest scheme by these cone-heads is a series of dollar coins featuring a rotation of deceased Presidents. The new Presidential base-metal dollars will be 9.2% larger than our current junk quarters. The first of the new dollar series will feature George Washington. I can’t wait to see this latest item — maybe I’ll even buy a few, and become a coin collector.

Speaking of precious metals, it’s important to realize that silver is used industrially while this is not the case with gold. All the gold ever mined is probably above ground (except that which has been lost at sea), but silver is actually running at a deficit, meaning more silver is used and used up than is mined annually. The US strategic stock of silver is now gone.

Be that as it may, the ratio of gold to silver has been declining dramatically in waves over the years. The most recent down-wave began in May 2003. At that time an ounce of gold would buy 80.4 ounces of silver. As of yesterday, an ounce of gold would buy 48.04 ounces of silver, a huge drop in the ratio…”

The twin US deficits threaten to undermine the US dollar within the next two-and-a-half years. Not the argument of a deranged gold bug but the former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker last week. Another Washington big name Robert Rubin also called for higher taxes to rebalance the budget to save the US dollar.

Saudi Arabia: Sunday, November 19 – 2006

However, the point that should not be lost on potential gold investors is that the systemic problems of the US dollar show no signs of going away, and that this structural weakness is already reflected in a rising gold price, and will probably end in a spectacular gold price blow-off in a dollar crisis.

Paul Volcker is the man who steered the US out of high inflation in the early 1980s, although his handling of the US economy did not prevent the 1987 Wall Street Crash. Robert Rubin was behind the Clinton balanced budget of the late 1990s and yet his call for fiscal prudence is likely to fall on deaf ears in Washington.

US dollar crisis?

For the stage is being set for a US dollar crisis of major proportions. The US consumer boom of recent years has been supported domestically by a housing boom and internationally by the willingness of foreign countries to hold US Treasury bonds.

Now the US housing market is crashing, and China has signaled its intention to diversify away from its $1 trillion foreign currency holdings. The risk is that at some point there is a disorderly devaluation of the US dollar.

Indeed, this is probably essential for the US to recover its competitiveness in world markets and to rebound from the economic slowdown or recession into which the world’s largest economy is now moving. Devaluation is a quick way to scalp global creditors whose debts will be worth less than before.

Now in such process precious metals are a surefire winner. For gold and silver will take on the role of quasi currencies with a fixed supply of specie, and the US dollar will deflate against precious metals, inflating their value.

No way out?

So far the US has organized an orderly devaluation of the US dollar which has fallen by almost a third in value this century. However, in all market mechanisms there comes a tipping point where a trend becomes a rout – and it has to be said that expecting global creditors to continue to accept falling real debts is not sustainable.

This is why an authority as eminent as Paul Volcker forecasts a dollar crisis within the next two-and-a-half years, and why he is unwilling to extend that timeframe according to recent statements. But surely that also makes investment in gold and silver a one-way bet for this period?

Old hands in the gold trading community like Jim Sinclair are rubbing their hands at this prospect, and his formula predicts a domino effect of economic factors forming a downward spiral that results in surging gold prices, with silver a likely co-beneficiary.

His only worry is that his forecast of $1,650 an ounce gold could prove too conservative!

© 1996-2006 by AME Info FZ LLC / Emap Communications. All rights reserved.
This story was posted by Peter J. Cooper, Editor-in-Chief
Sunday, November 19 – 2006 at 08:11 UAE local time (GMT+4)

Print Date: Monday, November 20 – 2006 – 23:46:29 GMT+4

Find this article at:
http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/102342.html

Milton Friedman: an Autobiography

Milton FriedmanI was born July 31, 1912, in Brooklyn, N.Y., the fourth and last child and first son of Sarah Ethel (Landau) and Jeno Saul Friedman. My parents were born in Carpatho-Ruthenia (then a province of Austria-Hungary; later, part of inter-war Czechoslovakia, and, currently, of the Soviet Union). They emigrated to the U.S. in their teens, meeting in New York. When I was a year old, my parents moved to Rahway, N.J., a small town about 20 miles from New York City. There, my mother ran a small retail “dry goods” store, while my father engaged in a succession of mostly unsuccessful “jobbing” ventures. The family income was small and highly uncertain; financial crisis was a constant companion. Yet there was always enough to eat, and the family atmosphere was warm and supportive.

Along with my sisters, I attended public elementary and secondary schools, graduating from Rahway High School in 1928, just before my 16th birthday. My father died during my senior year in high school, leaving my mother plus two older sisters to support the family. Nonetheless, it was taken for granted that I would attend college, though, also, that I would have to finance myself.

I was awarded a competitive scholarship to Rutgers University (then a relatively small and predominantly private university receiving limited financial assistance from the State of New Jersey, mostly in the form of such scholarship awards). I was graduated from Rutgers in 1932, financing the rest of my college expenses by the usual mixture of waiting on tables, clerking in a retail store, occasional entrepreneurial ventures, and summer earnings. Initially, I specialized in mathematics, intending to become an actuary, and went so far as to take actuarial examinations, passing several but also failing several. Shortly, however, I became interested in economics, and eventually ended with the equivalent of a major in both fields.

In economics, I had the good fortune to be exposed to two remarkable men: Arthur F. Burns, then teaching at Rutgers while completing his doctoral dissertation for Columbia; and Homer Jones, teaching between spells of graduate work at the University of Chicago. Arthur Burns shaped my understanding of economic research, introduced me to the highest scientific standards, and became a guiding influence on my subsequent career. Homer Jones introduced me to rigorous economic theory, made economics exciting and relevant, and encouraged me to go on to graduate work. On his recommendation, the Chicago Economics Department offered me a tuition scholarship. As it happened, I was also offered a scholarship by Brown University in Applied Mathematics, but, by that time, I had definitely transferred my primary allegiance to economics. Arthur Burns and Homer Jones remain today among my closest and most valued friends.

Though 1932-33, my first year at Chicago, was, financially, my most difficult year; intellectually, it opened new worlds. Jacob Viner, Frank Knight, Henry Schultz, Lloyd Mints, Henry Simons and, equally important, a brilliant group of graduate students from all over the world exposed me to a cosmopolitan and vibrant intellectual atmosphere of a kind that I had never dreamed existed. I have never recovered.

Personally, the most important event of that year was meeting a shy, withdrawn, lovely, and extremely bright fellow economics student, Rose Director. We were married six years later, when our depression fears of where our livelihood would come from had been dissipated, and, in the words of the fairy tale, have lived happily ever after. Rose has been an active partner in all my professional work since that time.

Thanks to Henry Schultz’s friendship with Harold Hotelling, I was offered an attractive fellowship at Columbia for the next year. The year at Columbia widened my horizons still further. Harold Hotelling did for mathematical statistics what Jacob Viner had done for economic theory: revealed it to be an integrated logical whole, not a set of cook-book recipes. He also introduced me to rigorous mathematical economics. Wesley C. Mitchell, John M. Clark and others exposed me to an institutional and empirical approach and a view of economic theory that differed sharply from the Chicago view. Here, too, an exceptional group of fellow students were the most effective teachers.

After the year at Columbia, I returned to Chicago, spending a year as research assistant to Henry Schultz who was then completing his classic, The Theory and Measurement of Demand. Equally important, I formed a lifelong friendship with two fellow students, George J. Stigler and W. Allen Wallis.

Allen went first to New Deal Washington. Largely through his efforts, I followed in the summer of 1935, working at the National Resources Committee on the design of a large consumer budget study then under way. This was one of the two principal components of my later Theory of the Consumption Function.

The other came from my next job – at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where I went in the fall of 1937 to assist Simon Kuznets in his studies of professional income. The end result was our jointly published Incomes from Independent Professional Practice, which also served as my doctoral dissertation at Columbia. That book was finished by 1940, but its publication was delayed until after the war because of controversy among some Bureau directors about our conclusion that the medical profession’s monopoly powers had raised substantially the incomes of physicians relative to that of dentists. More important, scientifically, that book introduced the concepts of permanent and transitory income.

The catalyst in combining my earlier consumption work with the income analysis in professional incomes into the permanent income hypothesis was a series of fireside conversations at our summer cottage in New Hampshire with my wife and two of our friends, Dorothy S. Brady and Margaret Reid, all of whom were at the time working on consumption.

I spent 1941 to 1943 at the U.S. Treasury Department, working on wartime tax policy, and 1943-45 at Columbia University in a group headed by Harold Hotelling and W. Allen Wallis, working as a mathematical statistician on problems of weapon design, military tactics, and metallurgical experiments. My capacity as a mathematical statistician undoubtedly reached its zenith on V. E. Day, 1945.

In 1945, I joined George Stigler at the University of Minnesota, from which he had been on leave. After one year there, I accepted an offer from the University of Chicago to teach economic theory, a position opened up by Jacob Viner’s departure for Princeton. Chicago has been my intellectual home ever since. At about the same time, Arthur Burns, then director of research at the National Bureau, persuaded me to rejoin the Bureau’s staff and take responsibility for their study of the role of money in the business cycle.

The combination of Chicago and the Bureau has been highly productive. At Chicago, I established a “Workshop in Money and Banking”. which has enabled our monetary studies to be a cumulative body of work to which many have contributed, rather than a one-man project. I have been fortunate in its participants, who include, I am proud to say, a large fraction of all the leading contributors to the revival in monetary studies that has been such a striking development in our science in the past two decades. At the Bureau, I was supported by Anna J. Schwartz, who brought an economic historian’s skill, and an incredible capacity for painstaking attention to detail, to supplement my theoretical propensities. Our work on monetary history and statistics has been enriched and supplemented by both the empirical studies and the theoretical developments that have grown out of the Chicago Workshop.

In the fall of 1950, I spent a quarter in Paris as a consultant to the U.S. governmental agency administering the Marshall Plan. My major assignment was to study the Schuman Plan, the precursor of the common market. This was the origin of my interest in floating exchange rates, since I concluded that a common market would inevitably founder without floating exchange rates. My essay, The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates, was one product.

During the academic year 1953-54, I was a Fulbright Visiting Professor at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge University. Because my liberal policy views were “extreme” by any Cambridge standards, I was acceptable to, and able greatly to profit from, both groups into which Cambridge economics was tragically and very deeply divided: D.H. Robertson and the “anti-Keynesians”; Joan Robinson, Richard Kahn and the Keynesian majority.

Beginning in the early 1960s, I was increasingly drawn into the public arena, serving in 1964 as an economic adviser to Senator Goldwater in his unsuccessful quest for the presidency, and, in 1968, as one of a committee of economic advisers during Richard Nixon’s successful quest. In 1966, I began to write a triweekly column on current affairs for Newsweek magazine, alternating with Paul Samuelson and Henry Wallich. However, these public activities have remained a minor avocation – I have consistently refused offers of full-time positions in Washington. My primary interest continues to be my scientific work.

In 1977, I retire from active teaching at the University of Chicago, though retaining a link with the Department and its research activities. Thereafter, I shall continue to spend spring and summer months at our second home in Vermont, where I have ready access to the library at Dartmouth College – and autumn and winter months as a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover lnstitution of Stanford University.

From Nobel Lectures, Economics 1969-1980, Editor Assar Lindbeck, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1992

This autobiography/biography was first published in the book series Les Prix Nobel. It was later edited and republished in Nobel Lectures. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above.

Addendum, May 2005

In 1977, when I reached the age of 65, I retired from teaching at the University of Chicago. At the invitation of Glenn Campbell, Director of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, I shifted my scholarly work to Hoover where I remain a Senior Research Fellow. We moved to San Francisco, purchasing an apartment in a high-rise apartment building in which we still reside. The transition of my scholarly activities from Chicago to California was greatly eased by the willingness of Gloria Valentine, my assistant at Chicago, to accompany us west. She remains my indispensable assistant.

Hoover has provided excellent facilities for scholarly work. It enabled me to remain productive and an active member of a lively scholarly community.

Initially we continued to spend spring and summer quarters at Capitaf, our second home in Vermont. However, we soon came to appreciate the inconvenience of maintaining homes a continent apart and began to look in California for a replacement for Capitaf. In 1979, we purchased a house on the ocean in Sea Ranch, a lovely community 110 miles north of San Francisco. In 1981, we disposed of Capitaf and began to spend about half the year at Sea Ranch at intervals of a week or so, spread throughout the year, rather than in one solid block. It proved a fine locale for scholarly work. The Internet plus an assistant at Hoover more than made up for the absence of a library near at hand.

After more than two wonderful decades at Sea Ranch, we sold our house to simplify our lives. We now have one home, our apartment in San Francisco.

To return to the 1970s, not long after we arrived in California, Bob Chitester persuaded us to join him in producing a major television program presenting my economic and social philosophy. The resulting effort, spread over three years, proved the most exciting adventure of our lives. The end result was Free to Choose, ten one-hour programs, each consisting of a half-hour documentary and a half-hour discussion. The first of the ten programs appeared on PBS (Public Broadcasting System) in January 1980. Since then, the series has been shown in many foreign countries.

When we agreed to undertake the project, little did Rose and I realize what was involved in producing a major TV series. As a first step, I gave a series of fifteen lectures over a period of nine months at a wide variety of locations. The lectures and question-and-answer sessions were all videotaped to provide the producers with a basis for planning the programs.

The filming began in March 1978 and continued for the next eight months at locations in the United States and around the world, including Hong Kong, Japan, India, Greece, Germany, and the United Kingdom – in the process generating more than six miles of video and audiotape.

Three months after the end of filming, we returned to London to view the documentaries that Michael Latham, our wonderful producer, and his associates had created from that tape and to dub the voice-overs. Another six months passed before we gathered again in Chicago where we filmed the discussion sessions – one of the most stressful weeks I have ever experienced.

One distinguishing feature of the series was that there was no written script. I talked extemporaneously from notes. When we returned to Capitaf from London with the transcripts of the final documentaries, we set to work to convert them to a book to appear simultaneously with the TV program. The book, Free to Choose (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980) was the bestseller nonfiction book of 1980 and continues to sell well. It has been translated into more than fourteen foreign languages.

As Rose wrote in our memoirs, “As we look back at the events chronicled in this chapter, it all seems like something of a fairy tale. Who would have dreamed that after retiring from teaching, Milton would be able to preach the doctrine of human freedom to many millions of people in countries around the globe through television, millions more through our book based on the television program, and countless others through videocassettes” (p. 503).

Monetary Trends in the United States and the United Kingdom, published in 1982, was the final major product of a collaboration with Anna J. Schwartz under the auspices of the National Bureau of Economic Research that lasted more than three decades. Money Mischief (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992) collects assorted pieces of monetary history, some of which I had published elsewhere, some of which appear first in this book.

I have continued to be active in public policy since 1977. I continued my tri-weekly column in Newsweek until it was terminated in 1983. Since then, I have published numerous op-eds in major newspapers. I served as an unofficial adviser to Ronald Reagan during his candidacy for the presidency in 1980, and as a member of the President’s Economic Policy Advisory Board during his presidency. In 1988, President Reagan awarded me the Presidential Medal of Freedom and in the same year I was awarded the National Medal of Science.

We have traveled extensively since 1977, including a trip through Eastern Europe in 1990, where we filmed a documentary on former Soviet satellites. The documentary was included in a shortened reissue of Free to Choose.

Perhaps the most notable foreign travel consisted of three trips to China: one in 1980 when I gave a series of lectures under the auspices of the Chinese government; one in 1988 when I attended a conference in Shanghai on Chinese economic development and had a fascinating session in Beijing with Zhao Ziyang, at the time, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, deposed a few months later for his unwillingness to approve the use of force on Tiananmen Square; and one in 1993 when I traveled with a group of Chinese friends from Hong Kong throughout the country. The three visits covered a period of revolutionary economic growth and development, the first stage of a shift from an authoritarian, centrally planned economy to a largely free market economy.

Ever since the 1950s, Rose and I have been interested in the promotion of parental choice in schooling through the use of vouchers. Finally, in 1996, when it became clear that our personal involvement would have to be limited, we established a foundation, The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation devoted to promoting parental choice in schooling. We were fortunate in being able to persuade Gordon St. Angelo to serve as president. He has done an outstanding job. Progress toward our objective of universal vouchers has been distressingly slow, but there has been progress. The pace of progress shows every sign of speeding up, and our foundation has made a significant contribution to that progress.

In 1998, the University of Chicago Press published our memoirs, Milton and Rose D. Friedman, Two Lucky People.

Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1976

Next Page »