Have your say

Friedman overpraised

Re: Friedman was a five-foot-three giant (Aug. 1). Donald Boudreaux calls University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman a giant among 20th-century scholars. Surely the time has come, however, to recognize Friedman has been toppled from his pedestal and restored to his natural diminutive stature.

While the prominent apostle of unregulated free markets was no doubt largely correct in his assessment of the ability of the marketplace to produce an extraordinary abundance of consumer goods, it is clear he was fundamentally wrong in concluding that the same principle holds true for virtually all areas of human creative endeavour.

There are many requirements of modern civilization for which the free market does not necessarily represent the optimum method of supply. In the great democracies, the reality is that governments are the legitimate agents of the collective will of the people. Our legal system, public education and universal health care are obvious prominent examples of useful government activity desired by the people.

There are also many aspects of the so-called free market that require government regulation, legitimately to protect the vital interest of the people. For simple examples think of environmental protection, building codes, consumer health and safety regulation of drinking water, pharmaceuticals, automobiles and airlines.

For further proof of Friedman's fundamental error simply look to Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve and avowed disciple of the Friedman-inspired "Chicago school." Following the disastrous financial meltdown of 2008, in Congressional testimony on Oct. 23, 2008, Greenspan finally conceded error on regulation. The New York Times wrote, "a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets ... and ... acknowledged that his belief in deregulation had been shaken."

JOHN D. PERRIN

Winnipeg

In his praise of Milton Friedman, Donald Boudreaux seems to care more about how the free-market system is played than in its results. Yes, some of its results are mighty impressive. If Churchill were still alive, he might say that it's the worst system except for all the others.

But in the Friedman tradition, Boudreaux seems to care little about the poverty and inequality that are products of the free-market system. Playing the "game" by a sacred set of free-market rules enunciated by Friedman and others is not enough; outcomes are equally important.

Hockey fans are interested in not only how the game is played, but in its score. Boudreaux would do well to offer a more balanced assessment of Friedman and free markets he so loved.

JOHN HARVARD

Winnipeg

Crunching the fringe

While I wholeheartedly applaud the continued success of the Winnipeg Fringe Theatre Festival and its organizers, there is some seriously misleading number-crunching involved in the implication in your July 31 editorial Fringe record that the average production takes home $4,000.

If we first recognize the 15 top-selling shows from the largest venues (ranging from the 220-seat Ellice Theatre to the 320-seat Prairie Theatre Exchange Mainstage) likely account for at least 40 per cent of the fringe's overall box-office, we're left with $411,712 to divide among the remaining 157 shows, for an average gross of $2,622. (And given there were 175 sold-out shows, it's clear the majority earned significantly less than that.)

If we subtract a minimum $1,000 for the cost of the fringe application fee and minimal production and promotion costs (subtract at least another $500 for Bring Your Own Venues), we can carve that down to about $1,622 net for a moderately successful show.

That $1,622 is then divided among as many as a dozen contributing artists, depending on the nature of the show. For many professional theatre artists (some of us don't have "day jobs" to return to), this return is unmanageable.

After nearly 20 years of involvement with the Winnipeg fringe, I'm certainly aware only a fool or a genius enters the festival expecting to make money from it. I do it because it's an opportunity to create theatre that might not otherwise find any audience at all.

Each year, however, it becomes more and more difficult just to cover the cost of mounting a show with any reasonable amount of rehearsal (rehearsal space costs money) or production values. To borrow from the editorial's metaphor, there may still be enough butter to cover the entire slice of bread, but what we end up with is a large pat covering a small area in the middle, away from the crust.

KEVIN KLASSEN

Winnipeg

I would like to see an end to the star ratings given by both the Free Press and CBC reviewers of the fringe festival. There were several times this year when I could not understand the reason why certain shows received four or five stars; many people base their choices on the star rating, and it is a very flawed system.

Reviews are always subjective, but in the case of fringe performers, a poor review can annihilate a show and leave the actor or actors with little or no audience. The fringe is all about taking a chance and the star system can be very misleading. I'm all for the review itself; just leave the stars in the sky where they belong.

JUDY DOCTOROFF

Winnipeg

Prostates in context

The July 27 article by Dr. W. Gifford-Jones on cancer of the prostate, Live with cancer, don't die from surgery, needs some balance.

It is true the highest level of proof is lacking that PSA early detection saves lives. This is because it takes 15 years to do a proper controlled study and the volunteers in the control group always get tested when they should not.

They realize they are being used as guinea pigs in something where the consequences can be catastrophic.

It is also true the late Dr. Willet Whitmore was once one of America's leading urological cancer authorities. He argued eloquently and convincingly that PSA early detection was not the right thing to do. Ironically, Whitmore died of cancer of the prostate.

Since cancer of the prostate is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in men, maybe readers should take Gifford-Jones's diatribe with a grain of salt.

DR. HENRY P. KRAHN

Mesa, Ariz.

Insulting the workers

Fabrice Taylor's July 28 column, Want more money? Get a(nother) job, is an insult to those of us who actually do work for a living and rely on our actual wages to pay our bills (yes, the working class).

He writes, "But if you're working 37.5 hours a week as most people are these days, what's an extra 10 hours?"

Don't people who actually work for a living deserve a couple of days off? This article is so obvious in preaching its conservative, pro-business mantra that it is laughable.

The only thing I am surprised at here is Taylor did not advise his struggling readers to take off to the tarsands for six months out of the year, as he did in a previous article praising Alberta's successes.

CANDICE BODNARUK

Winnipeg

Agony and ecstasy

For two of the world's top athletes, the best and worst parts of the summer might be summed up in a single number -- 19.

Best for Michael Phelps, now the most decorated Olympian in history with an astonishing 19 medals to his credit.

Worst for Tiger Woods, a putative member of the 2016 U.S. Olympic golf team, whose life-long goal has been to surpass Jack Nicklaus's record 18 major victories with 19 of his own.

The number 19 will help propel Phelps as it continues to haunt Woods.

MARK S. RASH

Winnipeg

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 3, 2012 A13