Talk:Chicago school of economics/Archive 1

Untitled
There needs to be a distinction between the Old Chicago School (Knight et.al.) and the New chicago School (Firedman, et. al.). ___

Wasn't George Stigler also considered a part of this group? I just read his memoirs and he certainly considered himself a member, with no indication that anyone else thought otherwise.

Absolutely. I was one of Stigler's students during the mid-1980's. There is no question that he was a leading member of the Chicago School. WBcoleman 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Chicago School of Economics or Dept. of Economics at U Chicago?
I'm confused after reading this article. Is it called Chicago School of Economics, or Dept. of Economcs at University of Chicago?


 * It is not a formal institution, it is a school of thought in the field of economics that happens to be at home at the University of Chicago. Uppland 16:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * good question and I tried to clarify it. Rjensen 17:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In the See Also section, there are links to famous economists in the Chicago School. But, although they are faculty members at the University of Chicago, isn't it hard to consider Lucas, Fogel, Heckman, and Becker as members of the Chicago school?

Reagonomics and Thatcherism
Can someone who has more understanding of this subject talk about the actual influence of this school of thought on public policy. Reagan seems the most obvious candidate (within a broad if concise treatment of the influence of the ideas of the "Chicago School" ). 192.43.227.18 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the above section on the Chicago Boys, I think this constitutes the clearest examples. The economy of Chile was substantially reshaped after the policies formulated by a group of economists within the Chicago school, with far-reaching consequences within and outside the country. Emil 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Where does this come from: Only some, but not a majority, of the professors in the economics department are considered part of the school of thought.

I attend UofC and it seems like the majority of econ. dept. professors are Chicago school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.240.100 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Frank Knight ... avowed neoclassical economist?
Eh -- who wrote that? Frank Knight precedes the neoclassical label (at least to some degree), but I'm sure he would have been highly critical of it. He may have some comments on the label; we should be on the watch for them. Frank Knight can't really be included on this list without major qualifications; he should also be included in the criticisms section. Yes, he believed in the free market, but he had a very nuanced take on it. For a taste of what I'm talking about, read his wikipedia page. II | (t - c) 08:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Chicago school of economics
What do people think of renaming? The Chicago school is a school of thought in economics. One does not necessarily need to go to Chicago to be "Chicago school". Others have made the distinction of "Sweetwater"/"Saltwater" schools (Chicago=Sweetwater), and these are similarly philosophical schools, not literal per se. II | (t - c) 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will go through with this if nobody comments. II  | (t - c) 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant?
Along the same lines as below, this: Chicago School theories lay behind many of the policies of the World Bank and other Washington-based financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and U.S. Treasury Department,[1] which embraced free market solutions as the recipe for the reform of economically wrecked countries, as was expressed in the Washington consensus. Under its influence, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, large portions of the state-owned companies in many Third World countries were privatized. This usually took the place by American pressure to destabilise a country's economy untill it hurt so much the policies would be accepted and the outside interference would then stop. By these methods many American multinational companies would be able to snap up publicly built up industries at very low prices. See Naomi Klien Shock Doctrine 2007[2]

is only included as an attack. "Adam Smith's theories lay behind many of the policies of the World Bank . . . " is equally accurate. Moreover, the Naomi Klien reference in post of the Chicago School is about as informative as a McCarthy quote on communism, she has proved her animosity towards the ideas over shadow her intelectual honesty.

68.236.124.238 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what this

'Famously or infamously (depending on one's political leanings), Chicago's economics department also has served as a training ground for many Latin American technocrats, the most prominent of which, the "Chicago boys," helped inplement the policies of the regime of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, many of which have been continued since full democratization in the early 1990s, and are still supported by Chile's ruling Socialist party.'

has to do with the Chicago School? They are policies implemented by the "Chicago Boys" and should be left in the article pertinent to them. The effort to link the Chicago school of economic thought with a dictator is pathetic and juvenile.


 * Hmmm, I'm not sure it is juvenile so much that whoever wrote this re Pinochet doesn't actually understand what is meant by the term "Chicago School". That is, once again, someone has confused this term--which refers to a school of thought that developed at the University--with the economics dept itself. But yes, it is irrelevant and misleading, so i'm deleting. 192.43.227.18 10:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You might think there is no link, but this school of thought had a huge impact on Chile. We need a couple of paragraphs on it.


 * Or were you saying that "free-markets" are juvenile compared to socialism? --Uncle Ed 16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just added a rather careful reference to the influence of the Chicago School on World Bank policies, but I must agree that the Chicago Boys deserve a mention here too. See the article for more info, but briefly stated, the Chicago Boys were influenced by Friedman and the Chicago School. The policies worked out by the Chicago Boys and implemented in Pinochet's Chile are perhaps the clearest impact of the Chicago School on the real world. I agree that the proposed wording above is misleading, but the mistake is in referring to the department rather than to the school of thought, rather than in making the connexion at all. If a dictator employs a group of ardent followers of a certain school of thought to radically reshape policy, I don't really think it's juvenile to suggest a link between the two. I'm not saying, however, that the school of thought should necessarily be held responsible for the various misdeeds of Pinochet. The link is a bit uni-directional, though Friedman himself once proclaimed that "Chile is an economic miracle" (Mason, 1997:80). Emil 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Resources relevant to this page -- noting old / new Chicago school; vague concept
When you poke around at the literature, you see references to first Chicago and second Chicago. At the top of this page someone said we need to note the differences, and we should. Here is an interesting article which says that although Knight and Friedman seem poles apart, they are both heterodox. It's a little kooky. Observations on the "Chicago School(s)" is worth glancing at, as well On the Origins of the Chicago Schools, which is a bit wordy and focuses on early history; it also seems to criticize the concept and continuity. II | (t - c) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was me that put all the individuals in from Chicago. I actually don't know much more about Knight than what I read on Wikipedia, but I did see he tutored quite a few people, incl. Friedman. Maybe his "membership" of the Chicago School (which I think we all associate with a distinctly neo-liberal movement) should be better qualified in the article? And so is it right that he's quite an ordinary neo-classical kind of chap, like Alfred Marshall, or other pre-Keynsians; but that he was nevertheless influential?  Wik idea  15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is good that you put Knight in; he certainly belongs. He is the most influential member of the "first" old school of Chicago economics. Knight is less of a typical neoclassical, but he could still be called neoclassical for sure, and although he wasn't nearly as much of a market fundamentalist, he did believe strongly in markets. There really are two Chicago schools of economics. At some point I'll try to update accordingly; need to read further first. II  | (t - c) 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Stein
Does anyone know if Herbert Stein should be classified as part of the Chicago school? I don't think he's prominent enough to include on this page (please forgive me if I'm mistaken), but it might be added to the article on him. C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He is a member of the Chicago school of thought, but his influence is not substantial enough to warrant him being mentioned under the scholars sections. He hasn't done any economic theory of significant note. Seelum (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion Vs Fact
Please do not write the opinions of Paul Krugman on here and then call it "widely known fact". If you are going to bring up opinionated critiques of the Chicago School, then put it under the critic section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.106.156 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think the "The Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 and the Chicago School" section should be moved into a larger Critic section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.106.156 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Propose Adding Fama
Eugene Fama probably deserves his own section here - thoughts? Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Added Fama to the scholars list and added a few facts - it could be polished and/or expanded as others see fit. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Section
The 'Discussion' section of the article seems like a detached point that someone wants to make rather than a well-integrated piece of the article. It seems like there should be an expanded discussion/commentary section, or the point that it makes should be incorporated into the main section or the criticism section or even removed entirely rather than remain as kind of an isolated argument. I would like to here the views of other editors on this section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no Critic section?
Why is there no critic section for the Chicago School of Economics? There is one for the Austrian School, but not for the Chicago School.

Would you like for me to write a critique? I could focus on Milton Friedman's ideas. He believed that although the market should be left free, he thought that the government MUST take monopoly control of the money supply.

There are a whole host of problems with socialized financing, and I could write a short summary of how it causes business cycles by referencing the Austrian School.

Thoughts? (talk 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem? Fix it!. You don't need permission to edit pages :) Skomorokh  confer 04:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. There is nothing to criticize about simultaneously supporting a "free market" and also forcing people to use confetti generated in exponentially increasing amounts from a printing press.Doubledork (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of the criticism section, but the current wording of the paragraph is quite awkward. If no one opposes, I will make the language more appropriate, probably shortening some of the current descriptions and hopefully adding more content if time allows. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Revamped the section, (hopefully) making it read better. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The recent deletion of the lead two sentences to the criticism section made the section much worse - it now begins with a relatively minor point. I will find ironclad sources for the first two sentences and then restore them. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Influence in Indonesia
Should it be mentioned that Indonesia under dictator Suharto gave free reins to some economist from the Chicago school, also know as the Chicago mafia afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vifteovn (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

''However, if genocide is under­ stood as these courts define it, as an attempt to deliberately obliterate the groups who were barriers to a political project, then this process can be seen not just in Argentina but, to varying degrees of intensity, throughout the re­ gion that was turned into the Chicago School laboratory. In these countries, the people who "got in the way of the ideal" were leftists of all stripes: econ­ omists, soup kitchen workers, trade unionists, musicians, farm organizers, politicians. Members of all these groups were subjected to a clear and delib­ erate region-wide strategy, coordinated across borders by Operation Condor, to uproot and erase the left. '' Naomi Klein, The shock doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.196.46 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Chicago school (economics)
I would suggest moving this page to Chicago school (economics), and referring to the school of thought described in this page as the Chicago school, not the 'Chicago school of economics'. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The introduction would begin with 'The Chicago school refers to a neoclassical school of thought within the academic community of economists...'. The page 'Chicago school of economics' would instead be a redirect page.

The reasons for calling this school of thought the Chicago school include:
 * People usually talk about the 'Chicago school' instead of 'Chicago school of economics'
 * This usage is similar to the way people talk about other viewpoints in economics, such as the 'Austrian school', which is never called the 'Austrian school of economics'
 * This way of titling the page would be similar to Wikipedia's treatment of Austrian school and Stockholm school
 * There are several actual institutions with names like London School of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, and Paris School of Economics. If we title this page 'Chicago school of economics', it might confuse people, making it sound like an actual institution. The actual institution related to this page is the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago. But that is distinct from the school of thought, and it appears to me that this page is about the school of thought, not about the department itself.

--Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur.


 * 1) This is confusing and should be changed. I have found a number of incidences where economists refer to themselves as being 'of the Chicago school' or 'of the Austrian school', yet never attended the University of Chicago.
 * 2) Regarding the article for schools of economic thought, the name of the universities mentioned, as examples in the top section, second paragraph, link to the homepage for the universities therein mentioned. However, the link for the University of Chicago redirects to this article.
 * 3) That is confusing if the user is interest in the economics department and not the school of thought, (as all professors at the University of Chicago are not believers or practitioners of the Chicago school of thought) and this is inconsistent with other wikipedia articles.


 * I would move to change the name of this article to Chicago school (economics), and will do so, if there is no objection within a reasonable amount of time. There is nothing civil about Civil War.Let's Talk! 09:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree The term in common use is "Chicago School of Economics" (there are Chicago schools in other disciplines such as Sociology.) The RS are clear: eg Milton Friedman: a biography (2007) by Ebenstein has chapter 14 "CHICAGO SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS"; or a full-length recent book: The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics ed. by Ross B. Emmett  (2010). Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
The idea that Wall Street invests in any way except how it wants seems absurd to me, with 12 yrs of experience on trading floors. I am very interested in seeing text explaining how government forced the American financial system, as well as other nations, to make sub-par loans. Unfortunately the the WSJ link is only for subscribers.

It seems Posner is the speaker now, conveniently a lawyer rather than an economist, and other material he is presenting may be a good source. If someone with knowledge can supply good links of his or others explaining this, I will gather the text. --John Bessa (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think its common practice to place responses to criticism within the "Criticism" section, and will delete the last two sentences of stated section unless given a reason not to. Spartan2600 (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This Criticism section could use some work, I think. As noted above, the responses to the criticism aren't good - the bit about the government 'forcing' Wall Street to give bad loans seems particularly preposterous and at odds with the facts. At the same time, the actual criticism doesn't get to the root of the matter - vitriolic quotes about the Chicago School being representative of the Dark Ages don't make the case for how deregulation and unfettered markets helped cause and exacerbate the financial crisis. I'll see if I can make some time to improve this section, or it would be wonderful if anyone else would take a crack at it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's put any real work into this, but the more closely I examine the 'responses' to the criticism, the more dubious they seem. Posner is wrongly cited as a source, and I'm not sure why Sowell's book should carry much weight here - it seems to be a fringe, minority opinion.Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Edited the section to read less like a back and forth - left in the free market counter claim, but abbreviated it in such a way that the whole section read better. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Chicago School today
The Chicago School today is still a leader in the field, but it has lost some clout. Moreover, the fallout from the recent economic crisis compelled many Chicago Schoolers to question their methodology and policy conclusions. All of this should be noted in future edits to this article. (Unlike the dogmatic Mises Institute cultists, it actually speaks to the intellectual honesty of the Chicagoans that they would adjust their views on, for instance, deregulation following the total collapse of the (unregulated) "shadow bank" sector. (The heavily regulated, fascist commercial banking sector was fine, owing to reserve requirements.) Steeletrap (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Radical Departure post-Friedman
Milton Friedman's views on government intervention are vastly understated when compared to the current stance of the Chicago school. In fact, reading some of his older work there is a lot of Keynesian undertones such as government spending can increase employment in circumstances amongst other things. While he was by no means Keynesian, the Chicago School has really become anarcho-capitalistic almost since Friedman's hay-days - and idea he would have never supported. I personally think it's a shame since Friedman's views took the best from Keynes and the new Chicago school destroyed the intellectual integrity. Anyway, my point is, shouldn't the radical departure from Friedman's views of the Chicago School be cataloged since he was such a major player and really it has been a dramatic shift from his time to present? The field is almost a parody of his original brilliant work taken to an extreme, I feel it's worthy of mentioning this shift Seelum (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Someone has either lied spectacularly to you about the relevant facts, or you lack WP:Competence in your interpetation of them, because no economist currently at UChicago has expressed sympathy for anarchism. Quite the opposite: Chicago Schoolers have always been well aware of and have contributed substantially to the empirical evidence for market failure. They do not support cultish nonsense like "minarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism." Even Milton Friedman, the most radically libertarian of the bunch, supported a Negative Income Tax. Steeletrap (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobel Prize, part deux
You will see above that the question on which prize is which was raised. Having seen lots of debate (elsewhere) about the "correct" naming of the Nobel econ prize, I think article stability can best be maintained by linking to the specific prize which the Chicago school folks have accumulated. Also, and more importantly, WP:LINK advises that we link ones which are "likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." And the specific prize will do that better than the more generic Nobel Prize link. – S. Rich (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have particularly strong feelings on this matter. But I don't understand why you made the revert. Both are accurate characterizations and one is more clear to laypeople. Steeletrap (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP uses "Nobel Prize" for the economics thing. The other one is cumbersome and confusing. And pointless.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The drama goes back for years & years. For the sake of the Chicago folks, we don't want them caught up in anything other than a link to the Bank's prize. But if you want to go ahead & revert, be my guest. – S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you edit on the Prize and I'm happy. But another factor to consider is how do you count the noses? Somewhere, I'm not sure where at present, WP has guidance that says we can calculate numbers to come up with common sense results. (Like "A" has more Academy Awards than "B".) But does this article (or the Econ Prize article) parse out the actual numbers from one school to the other? – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I'm fairly certain UChicago has the most Nobel Prizes in econ, but this should be verified. Steeletrap (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobel Prize?
The article say: “has fielded more Nobel Prize laureates and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university” But is this a misapprehension and mixed with “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”? Because this is not the same as the Nobel Prize. Anyone who can verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.213.102 (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As you point out. There is no Nobel prize in economics. There is however the prize you mentioned. A prize that often has political dimensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.32.118 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hayek
Why is Hayek here, other than some attempt by his fans to move him into association with the school for optics? He wasn't a "Chicago school economist." QuinnHK (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * the text is clear enough: He was an economist at Chicago at the time and was NOT part of the school. This helps readers who might otherwise be puzzled or confused. Rjensen (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But won't they be more confused if he's stuck in there? Are there a lot of people who think he's part of the school cause he taught there? Maybe so. But with the ref at least it doesn't look silly. :-) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hayek and Friedman are often lumped together and indeed they were personal friends & collaborated, but in policy issues not in economic theory. The cite mentions that U Chicago/Economics Dept turned Hayek down for a job -- he was brought in by the Committee of Social Thought. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Learn something every day (and let's not forget all the stuff one forgets after age 65 :-) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed Hayek, whose economic thought was quite opposed to Chicago School thought and for whom there is no RS calling him part of the "Chicago School". My removal has been reverted. We might as well list Ernie Banks, Mayor Daley or other famous Chicagoans. The Hayek bit should not appear in this article without RS calling him part of Chicago School. SPECIFICO talk  22:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert] "Chicago School" is a methodology to economics, which entails some methodological and normative baggage. Just as not all economists from Austria are "Austrian Schoolers", not all economists from the University of Chicago economists are "Chicago Schoolers"; some are Kenyesians, and Hayek was an Austrian. Steeletrap (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hayek was not a member of the school but a lot of people get confused and think he was. A simple statement is all that is needed. However Hayek and Friedman were congruent on political issues and did collaborate. Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not tour guides here. You need RS, right?  This article is not about political overlaps.  If it were, we'd add hundreds of non-Chicago School narratives.  This article is about a thread of economic thought and Hayek was no part of it. Please remove the text or find RS which explicitly coincides with your view.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * yes we are guides. This encyclopedia is a tour guide to modern thought. It's our job to help readers who may be confused. Here are examples of the misconceptions in recent serious books: 1) "The micro-economic propositions formulated and subjected to empirical testing by modern Chicago School thinkers build chiefly on the work of Austrians Carl Menger and Friedrich Hayek (Thatcher's economic guru)" [Integral Economics (2010); 2) "the members of which included Friedrich von Hayek, and the Chicago School of Economics," [if you miss the comma after Hayek you get the wrong idea; Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (2012)]; 3) " especially to the so-called 'Chicago School', in which the economist Friedrich Hayek was prominent" [Thatcher and Thatcherism (2013)]; 4) " Thatcher's neo-liberalism – a form that approximated the prescriptions of Hayek and the Chicago School" [Negotiating Demands  (2007); 5) " ardent laissez-faire approaches that are associated with Hayek and the Austrian School, or the Chicago School." [Neoliberalism (2005)] Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to include that Freddy was NOT Salma Hayek's great uncle and that he did NOT copy his natty little mustache after failed presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey. The point is you need RS discussion of whatever content you advocate. Maybe there should be a section called "Popular misconceptions about the Chicago School" and Hayek can be a misconception? SPECIFICO talk  02:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the RS is provided in footnote 14. Yes, I think a very valuable role of Wikipedia is to help people overcome their misconceptions. As the citations I gave demonstrate this misconception linking Hayek & Chicago is quite widespread among scholars & experts outside economics, such as political scientists & historians. Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sez who? SPECIFICO  talk  03:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO denies it or is just being obstinate? Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You need RS for the specific assertion you wish WP to state in text. You know that.  Find RS which says that there is widespread misconception that Hayek was a Chicago School economist but no he really was not he just taught there in another department.  If you can't find RS which states that, we are not allowed to state that in WP.  That's not my idea that's how WP works. But you already knew that.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the text in question is fully supported by footnote 14. Rjensen (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your subsequent addition to the Hayek bit, which is WP:SYNTH. Let's stand back a while and hear what other editors have to say. SPECIFICO talk  12:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * synthesis? Not at all. All the points are already included in the citations.  what is "synthetic??" Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming Hayek was not a member of the Chicago school, it is not proper to include him in the article with a separate subsection as we see now. A subsection that says he was not a member (previous version) does not work either (nor would subsections about other non-Chicago school economists who happened to be in the neighborhood). Hayek's views about the Chicago school can be included in some of the descriptive material, but a footnote about his non-membership (with proper documentation) would work best. – S. Rich (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

One suggestion might be a paragraph on Hayek in the criticism section, noting the differences between Austrian and Chicago theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.132.166 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chicago school of economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://economistsforromney.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Osipian's comment on this article
Dr. Osipian has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"very well formulated"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Osipian has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Osipian, Ararat, 2008. "Corruption of the Politicized University: Lessons from the Orange Revolution in Ukraine," MPRA Paper 11312, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chicago school of economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091205231818/http://www.press.uchicago.edu:80/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=3638673 to http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=3638673

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell?
Shouldn't Mr. Sowell be included? Not sure myself either way, just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.9.73 (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)