Perhaps I should have said the influence of Friedman's economics has been around since the Nixon white house. Nixon certainly didn't mind using taxpayer dollars to assist Friedman's Chile experiment.
Yea...but most of the "chicago school" after Friedman, Reaganomics, and Bush's economic plan really have nothing to do with following Friedman's outline for the economy. Most of these policies were a corruption of what he advocated, to aid big business and make it look economically legitimate.
Yes, Friedman would have been against the corporate bailout, but free markets as Friedman imagined them are impossible to implement when you have powerful entities free to cherry-pick economic systems. The fox eventually winds up in charge of the hen house.
I'd agree this is right, given our political system. Friedman's colleague at Chicago, Stigler, was well-known for his "capture theory", and Friedman did acknowledge this danger (it seems complete capture has occurred at this point). He did campaign for some policy changes that really would have brought about change, i.e. a constitutional amendment to abolish the federal reserve as we know it today.
So, I'll spell out the whole point to my post: blaming Keynesian economics for the whole mess is short-sited.
Yea, there are many causes we could find for the current mess that might equally be worthy of blame. Aside from looking at actual policies that helped cause the problem, I think many of us would agree that it has to do with our society's current practice of thinking we should all live beyond our means; greed for money and material items is OK when we can just charge it all to credit and create money out of thin air, thinking things will always improve to where we can pay off our debts. When society tells us it's better to go into massive debt for our material desires and buck all common sense in the process (look at govt. spending and the national debt; a great example for the average american and his finances), then we will run into problems.