On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:20:52 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

[Huntress said]


And the forces that he expected to work as a compensation, such as the
devaluing of the dollar that he assured us would be the balancing
factor that would allow us to absorb the changes with no net pain,


[Plimpton said]

Friedman would have said no such thing. A devaluation of a nation's
currency quite obviously hurts that nation's consumers in increasing the
prices of imports and creating upward pressure on domestic prices as well.


All right, here's a brief example from _Free to Choose_ The arguments
in _Capitalism and Freedom_ are more sophisticated and developed, but
this will give you the idea:

"What about the argument thatwe must defend the dollar, that we must
keep it from falling in value in terms of other currencies -- the
Japanese yen, the German mark, or the Swiss franc? That is a wholly
artificial problem. If foreign exchange rates are determined in a free
market, they will settle at whatever level will clear the market. The
resulting price of the dollar in terms of the yen, say, may
temporarily fall below the level justified by the cost in dollars and
yen respectively of American and Japanese goods...

"By lowering the price in yen of American exports to the Japanese, it
will stimulate American exports..."

(from Page 47)

Friedman's theory was that no country could sustain an absolute
advantage against the US for long, because the US dollar would fall
and balance would (quickly) be re-established. He wrote that in the
pre-globalization age and he didn't anticipate the many confounding
facts about world trade in 2012.

It's fundamental in Friedman's trade theory. You should know that.

--
Ed Huntress