P,
I have long been positively disposed towards the concept of free trade and globalization but it is only in recent years, as I've learnt more about the *realities* of "free trade" and the flawed or disastrous policies involved in its implementation that I've realized that I need to become sensible and look at the details of the policies - not just slogans. So, I will readily admit that until mid-to-late 2002 - i.e., until I started seriously following politics and blogs - I was not as informed as I am today.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with billionaires or people married to billionaires per se. I am a capitalist and strongly believe in people's right to amass wealth through ethical and legal means (and that includes - by marriage). What was noteworthy to me about the Friedman story is that his being so wealthy does raise questions about whether he is thinking through his positions on economic matters and whether he is an objective spokesperson on the matter of globalization and free trade.
Anyway, it's a question to ask - and I'm not insinuating in any way that Friedman's opinions on free trade are intended solely to benefit the wealthy. For all my criticisms of Friedman, I am willing to give him some benefit of doubt and just assume that he is uninformed like much of the chattering class in the media. It's just that when someone has such a prominent role in the media and prominent position in the media, readers should be aware of hidden (unintentional or intentional) biases that may creep in because of one's personal background.
P.S. Of course my own personal background or upbringing or economic status could likewise have some influence on my world views or opinions. But I do try to make sure I'm as objective as possible. Plus, unlike Friedman, I'm a nobody.
Posted by eriposte at July 30, 2006 07:37 PM