Edward Nelson and Anna Schwartz of the St. Louis Fed and NBER respectively have published a working paper which responds to Paul Krugman's essay in the New York Review of Books, "Who Was Milton Friedman?"
The paper is titled: The Impact of Milton Friedman on Modern Monetary Economics: Setting the Record Straight on Paul Krugman’s “Who Was Milton Friedman?”
The abstract:
Paul Krugman’s essay “Who Was Milton Friedman?” seriously mischaracterizes Friedman’s economics and his legacy. In this paper we provide a rejoinder to Krugman on these issues. In the course of setting the record straight, we provide a self-contained guide to Milton Friedman’s impact on modern monetary economics and on today’s central banks. We also refute the conclusions that Krugman draws about monetary policy from the experiences of the United States in the 1930s and of Japan in the 1990s.
Hat tip: RGE Monitor
What happened to Paul Krugman? This is yet another marker for a deteriorating mind.
Milton Friedman never seriously considered the validity of the real bills doctrine. This is not surprising, since he was a student of Lloyd Mints, who spent most of his life criticizing the real bills doctrine. Anyone who wants to understand money must understand the real bills doctrine, and a good place to start is a paper entitled "Backed Money, Fiat Money, and the Real Bills Doctrine", which David Friedman (Milton's son) posted on his own website.
While the real bills doctrine is not on the top of my agenda, I do recall reading some of Bruce Smith's papers several years ago. As I recall, they were some interesting papers. Thanks for the comment!