The Decline and Fall of Chicago Economics


Throughout the third quarter of the twentieth century, the Chicago School played an indispensable  intellectual role in defending laissez-faire capitalism from the predations of state capitalism and socialism. As a by-product, the Chicago School also became a foremost defender of economic liberty. The Chicago School advanced this innovative program of ideas through reliance on a sensible rational choice approach, the pre-eminence of private  property rights and the rule of law for sustainable economic development, sound microeconomics, and macroeconomics reflective of classical political economy insights adjusted for the adverse  experience of the Great Depression. Under the indisputed  intellectual leadership of Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, with the support of Ronald Coase, Harold Demsetz, William Landes, Sam Peltzman, Harry Gordon Johnson, Richard Epstein, Al Harberger, and many younger rising stars, Freshwater Economics engaged and defeated Saltwater Economics in a bloody battle for the soul of the discipline.

Even during that crucial quarter of a century, however, Chicago was spawning the seeds of its ultimate demise, with the hiring of less subtle thinkers such as George Stigler, Eugene Fama, Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, and Richard Posner, each of whom seized eagerly upon the new ideas of their more creative  colleagues and progressed within the economics profession by pushing those ideas too far. George Stigler forgot his own important insights on the limits of knowledge and ended up by deconstructing  political economy into a near-tautology that ‘what is is efficient’.  Eugene Fama became so impressed with the quality of his own mind that he forgot reality and advanced the notion that capital markets are strong-form efficient. Gary Becker became so enamored with his mentor George Stigler that he joined him in the new Chicago Political Economy program by analysing interest group behavior as welfare-enhancing agents of the public good.  Robert Lucas carved out a Nobel niche for himself by pushing rational expectations thinking to insane limits. And Richard Posner –  well how can I describe the contributions of Richard Posner in a column designed for family readership?

So the seeds for decline and fall were well-embedded into the Chicago economics program by the mid-1970s, awaiting  only the exodus of Hayek and Friedman in order to explode into dominance.  By the mid-1980s, the new Chicago was in full flood, now dominated by Stigler, Becker, Lucas, Posner and Fama.  Democratic political markets were not just politically efficient, but wealth maximizing for society. Interest groups were agents of the public good. Capital markets were universally strong-form efficient. Western macroeconomies were Pareto-optimal throughout the real business cycle.   The common law had evolved (in the United States at least)  into a wealth maximizing agent of economic development.  Think about the  Hubris of such shallow thinking, Dear Readers, and just  know that Nemesis  was out there waiting in the wings.  

Well, Nemesis moved center-stage in September 2008.  In tomorrow’s column I shall begin to address just where those Chicago over-achievers and their new accolytes have ended up,  following the shattering of their ill-founded fantasies.

Tags: , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “The Decline and Fall of Chicago Economics”

  1. zombiehero213 Says:

    I’m still reading Intellectuals and Society but Sowell as well as Hayek note, that intellectuals have the benefit of never having to pay for the consequences of their own ideas. Stigler, Becker, Lucas, Posner and Fama are all doing fine. Posner, with his recent convert to Keynes, is even more popular now than he ever was. Sigler and Lucas will have their Nobels, The current collapse just means Fama will have to wait 10-15 years to get his Nobel. After all his theory did pave the way for more Statism (TARP, Dodd Bill), and that’s all the current Nobel committee looks for anyway.

    • zombiehero213 Says:

      Of course the worst part of all this, is that Stigler, Lucas, et al…only help to tarnish the reputation of Friedman and Hayek To the Statist mind, it doesn’t matter that they were not laissez-faire economists. Statist don’t believe that Ad Hominem is a fallacy, they believe in guilty by association (when it’s politically convenient) So while Stigler, Becker, Lucas, Posner and Fama will not suffer, they provide Statist will more “ammunition.”

  2. Apu Whopooped Says:

    Keep tilting at those windmills. You’re having no effect, nor should you be allowed to.

  3. Apu Whopooped Says:

    zombiehero213 should really get himself a book on English grammar. You write like Rowley thinks, incoherently and without adherence to rules or logic.

  4. charlesrowley Says:

    I guess that it is all in the eyes of the beholder! Some eyes have 20:20 vision; and some do not.

  5. MHB Says:

    “intellectuals have the benefit of never having to pay for the consequences of their own ideas”

    Indeed, and neither did they become intellectuals/economists to find truths or right (and practical) solutions. If one is never held to account, there is no motivation to focus on getting things right. Most economists are just mercenaries arguing on behalf of their paymasters.

  6. zombiehero213 Says:

    You have Trolls. That means you must be doing something right.

  7. The Decline & Fall of the Chicago School of Economics | Taking Hayek Seriously Says:

    [...] Economics April 24, 2010 | Posted by Greg Ransom Charles Rowley on the unfolding tragedy — Intro, Part 1 and [...]

  8. Recomendaciones « intelib Says:

    [...] Decline and Fall of Chicago Economics (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), by Charles [...]

  9. Tom Says:

    Am I naive to think that these guys are right? Sure there may have been an error of believing markets were stronger form efficient than in reality, but it does not disprove the underling model they work with…in fact this explanation only gives credit to the model, so to address the issue is not to change the model of how to interpret or predict the economy, but rather build the mechanisms to make it more strong form. Strong form is the ideal of economics..all information is known…this is the core principle of sustainability as well. If you ask me, these guys have no idea how green they really are…point is, dont change the model, change the mechanism to allow the ideal to actually occur. Speaking of green, personal attacks are usually rooted in envy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: