Friedman is of course also famously the advocate of what he called in The Lexus and the Olive Tree “the golden straitjacket,” the idea that privatization is the magical answer to the economic woes of every country–the one and only answer, in fact.  Wise nations will deregulate their capital markets (enabling financial crises like the one that rocked Asia in the late 90s), balance their budgets (by cutting off services, like welfare, if needed), privatize industry (selling off State Owned Enterprises, usually to foreign multinationals, usually at fire sale prices), and eliminate all tariffs (ensuring that their privately owned “infant industries” will die, and eliminating the only mechanism most poor countries have to raise revenue to pay for services and welfare).  Capital will vote with its feet, Friedman 1.0 cheerfully assures us, for the benefit of all.  Those who advocate state protection of industries are economic troglodytes, caught up in outmoded orthodoxies or ignorant xenophobic nationalists.

For a schematic outline of the concept of the golden straitjacket, the electronic heard, and other Friedmanite neologisms you can go here or here. Friedman wrote:

To fit into the Golden Straitjacket a country must either adopt, or be seen as moving toward, the following golden rules: making the private sector the primary engine of its economic growth; maintaining a low rate of inflation and price stability, shrinking the size of its state bureaucracy, maintaining as close to a balanced budget as possible, if not a surplus, eliminating and lowering tariffs on imported goods, removing restriction on foreign investment, getting rid of quotas and domestic monopolies, increasing exports, privatizing state-owned industries and utilities, deregulating capital markets, making its currency convertible, opening its industries, stock, and bond markets to direct foreign ownership and investment, deregulating its economy to promote as much domestic competition as possible, eliminating government corruption, subsidies and kickbacks as much as possible, opening its banking and telecommunications systems to private ownership and competition, and allowing its citizens to choose from an array of competing pension options and foreign-run pension and mutual funds. When you stitch all of these pieces together you have the Golden Straitjacket. Unfortunately, this Golden Straitjacket is pretty much “one size fits all.”

This one-size-fits-all straitjacket is “golden” because it’s supposed to be the only path toward economic development.  The evidence of the last few decades (and the last hundred fifty years) suggests the opposite:  the golden straitjacket policies lead to slower economic growth and less development.  Protectionism, intellectual property piracy, and restrictions on capital mobility are necessary but not sufficient conditions for higher levels of growth and development (according to people like Chang, who I find persuasive). Ergo, by advocating for the golden straitjacket, I’m arguing that Friedman was objectively speaking advocating for more “green” policies, despite his claims to the contrary.