I wrote a post with this title which is poor, solitary, nasty, and long over at Robert’s stochastic thoughts.
the bottom line is I say Friedman was always a Keynesian except for his insistence that the effect of the nominal interest rate on money demand is more or less pretty much negligible. This means that I argue that he differed from Keynes because he was a monetarist. In the 80s the difference between monetarists and Keynesians (which always was a matter of a paremeter estimate and not any fundamental disagreement) was dwarfed by the difference between them and the fresh water new classical ratexians. But the point, if any of the rant is that Friedman is determined not to be trapped among the Keynesians and that he bases his efforts fundamentally on the importance of i.
The failed aim was to introduce the following modified story in which an innocent hen which happens to be red is rejected by red haters who can’t admit that they agree with non conservatives
“Who will prime the pump?”
But Friedman said, “Not i,”
she ran about calling briskly: “Who will cut the tax?”
Friedman said, “Not i,”
“Who will press demand?”
But Freidman, with a grunt, said, “Not i,”
“Who will demand the Wheat on the market to be sold?”
Turning his back with snippy glee, Friedman said, “Not i,”
“Who will make some bread?”
Milt said “Not i”