Boudreaux cleverly limits the discussion on the Friedman essay Wapshott singles out, since Friedman starts off the essay this way:
John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) is the latest in a line of great BritishFriedman then lists a number of economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, William Stanley Jevons and Alfred Marshall, and writes (my bold):
economists who had a profound inﬂuence on the discipline of economics.
Keynes clearly belongs in this line. In listing “the” classic of each of these great economists, historians will cite the General Theory as Keynes’s pathbreaking contribution. Yet, in my opinion, Keynes would belong in this line even if the General Theory had never been published. Indeed, I am one of a small minority of professional economists who regard his Tract on Monetary Reform (1923), not the General Theory, as his best book in economics. Even after sixty-ﬁve years, it is not only well worth reading but continues to have a major inﬂuence on economic policy.It's tough to paint Friedman as a Keynes-hater with an essay that starts in such manner. Thus Boudreaux finding words written by Friedman later in the essay attacking Keynes shows, if nothing else, that Friedman was not a very consistent thinker about Keynes. Surely a sign of love, or perhaps love-hate, but not of logic and reason.
Until Bodreaux addresses Friedman's views about Keynes in the starting paragraphs to the essay, Boiudreaux's reviews must be considered seriously incomplete. Further, Boudreaux continues to promote the idea that:
In fact, Milton Friedman's advocacy of free markets was as principled, consistent and honest as it was brilliant.To support this claim, Boudreaux must deal with Friedman's key role in designing the withholding tax, call for school vouchers, call for a negative income tax and call for a monetary printing rule---all big government programs in direct violation of free market principles. And, none of which Boudreaux discusses while throwing rose petals in front of the memory of the government technocrat Friedman. Perhaps, Boudreaux has a blind spot for Friedman, while the rest of us see Friedman's ugly spots.