Talk:Chicago school (economics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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?
[edit] How is this relevant?
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)