argues that Milton Friedman was too a closet Keynesian. He generally criticizes Friedman but, to be sure, makes some concessions to Friedman's many admirers (from both sincere belief and the aim for Ballance I'm sure).
He basically says that Friedman used an IS-LM model augmented with the Fisher effect and a critique of the hypothesis that there could be a liquidity trap. The critique is based on the Pigou effect (see post above). Also Friedman attempted to develop a theory of the determination of the price level. In this post Graeber correctly notes that he is describing things in Friedman's work which aren't in Hicks's paper on Keynes and the classics. All but the Pigou effect are in the General Theory (Keynes admitted that he hadn't gotten anywhere useful in his efforts to understand the price level, would that Friedman had been so modest as hey got to the exact same place).
I'd be very interested to know if anyone can find anything written by Friedman about unemployment and inflation which isn't there in Samuelson Solow (1960). In contrast, Samuelson and Solow (1960) note that cyclical unemployment can become structural. Friedman ignored this possibility in 1968. It was quite a hot topic in 1985 when OJ Blanchard and Samuelson's nephew dusted off the concept and named it "hysteresis".
Solow and Samuelson (in the famous paper 1960 in the AEA papers and procedings) argued that there can't be a liquidity trap due to the Pigou effect. Like Keynes, they argued that depressions couldn't last forever.
The Friedman Samuelson Solow Pigou effect argument against the liquidity trap depends entirely on the undefended and indefensible assumption that the marginal propensity to consume out of wealth is higher for nominal creditors than for nominal debtors. This silly idea is possible if one first simplifies by assuming there are two agents -- the public sector and the private sector.
Also the Pigou effect depends on assuming Ricardian non equivalence. Friedman asserted both that Pigou's argument against the liquidity trap is obviously correct and also that "to spend is to tax." I am sure that he was smart enough to notice the contradiction. I think he chose not to mention it because of intellectual dishonesty.