My Discussion with Grok About Points of Agreement Between Milton Friedman and the Current Residents of Brooklyn, NYC
I continue to be interested in what AI has to say about our world. So, I asked Grok a question that greatly interests me.
I asked Grok to make a photo of Milton Friedman near the Brooklyn Waterfront in 2025. It generated this;
I asked Grok
Would Any of Milton Friedman's ideas be embraced by the typical resident of Brooklyn New York?
Here is Grok’s Answer
Milton Friedman’s ideas, rooted in free-market economics, deregulation, and limited government intervention, would likely find a mixed reception among the typical resident of Brooklyn, New York, in 2025. Brooklyn’s demographic leans progressive, with a diverse mix of young professionals, artists, and working-class communities, often skeptical of unbridled capitalism, as seen in their support for figures like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in past elections. Let’s break down some of Friedman’s key ideas and how they might land:
Free Markets and Deregulation: Friedman argued markets work best with minimal government interference, advocating for deregulation in industries like healthcare or banking. Brooklynites, however, often favor policies addressing inequality and corporate overreach. For example, many support rent control or stronger labor protections, which clash with Friedman’s laissez-faire stance. His ideas might resonate with some tech entrepreneurs or finance types in Williamsburg or DUMBO, but the broader populace, wary of gentrification and corporate monopolies, would likely see deregulation as favoring the wealthy. X posts from Brooklyn locals often rail against “corporate greed,” suggesting skepticism toward Friedman’s trust in markets.
School Choice and Vouchers: Friedman’s push for school vouchers, allowing parents to use public funds for private schools, could find niche support among parents frustrated with underfunded public schools in areas like Bed-Stuy or Brownsville. But Brooklyn’s strong public school advocacy—seen in protests against charter school expansions—suggests most residents would view vouchers as undermining public education. Teachers’ unions, influential in NYC, further amplify this resistance.
Negative Income Tax: Friedman’s proposal for a negative income tax—a cash transfer to low-income individuals to replace welfare programs—might intrigue some progressives open to universal basic income experiments, like those championed by Andrew Yang, who has a following in parts of Brooklyn. But the idea’s emphasis on scrapping other social programs would raise eyebrows among those who value robust safety nets like Medicaid or public housing, especially in a borough where 20% of residents live below the poverty line (2023 Census data).
Monetarism and Economic Policy: Friedman’s monetarist view—that controlling money supply stabilizes economies—feels abstract to most residents grappling with immediate concerns like rent hikes or job precarity. His opposition to heavy fiscal stimulus or public spending would clash with Brooklyn’s support for infrastructure investments or Green New Deal-style policies, which resonate in a city vulnerable to climate change (e.g., post-Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts).
On the flip side, Brooklyn’s entrepreneurial streak—think startups in Bushwick or artisanal businesses—might align with Friedman’s emphasis on individual initiative. Yet, even these groups often back progressive policies like small business grants or green initiatives, which Friedman might’ve criticized as government overreach. His broader skepticism of collectivism would also jar with Brooklyn’s community-driven ethos, seen in mutual aid networks or cooperative businesses.
Data-wise, Brooklyn’s voting patterns tell a story: in 2020, Biden won 76% of Kings County’s vote, with socialist-leaning candidates like Sanders polling strongly in primaries. This suggests Friedman’s libertarian-leaning ideas would face an uphill battle.
On X, Brooklyn users frequently share critiques of capitalism or calls for systemic reform, rarely echoing Friedmanesque principles.That said, a contrarian minority—perhaps libertarian-leaning tech workers or fiscal conservatives in wealthier enclaves like Brooklyn Heights—might embrace his ideas on lower taxes or reduced bureaucracy. But they’re outliers. The typical Brooklyn resident, shaped by urban struggles, progressive values, and distrust of unchecked markets, would likely reject Friedman’s framework as disconnected from their reality. They’d probably see it as favoring elites over the diverse, scrappy communities they call home.
___________________________________________________________________
I must admit that I’m quite impressed with this answer.
Grok does not discuss “market failure” versus “government failure”. I bet that Friedman would be eager to debate whether governments face sufficient competition to incentivize their workers to experiment and to exert extra effort to attract and retain customers.
I believe that Friedman would emphasize the importance of street safety and the basic rule of law. Friedman and the people of Brooklyn would disagree about the merits of rent control, the minimum wage and the existence of public housing.
Brooklyn features many nice parks. Would Friedman support privatizing these parks and allowing the owner to charge an admission fee?
Friedman would support competition in providing transit services and street cleaning services. Would the current residents be willing to allow such experimentation to take place? If competition resulted in lower prices and a higher quality of service in Brooklyn, would the incumbent residents update their beliefs and thank Milton Friedman?