Chicagonomics: The Evolution of Chicago Free Market Economics Hardcover – October 6, 2015

Chicagonomics provides a broad perspective on the development of economics at the University of Chicago, with a special emphasis on the development of the so-called Chicago School of Economics and its relationship to those who came before, in particular Henry Simons, Frank Knight, and Jacob Viner. Lanny Ebenstein provides an engaging, readable, and at times opinionated account of the development, one that he knows well given his previous writings on Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.Especially useful was Ebenstein's convincing distinction between the writings of Simons, Knight, and Viner, described as classical liberals, and the eventual Chicago School dated to 1946 when Milton Friedman joined the faculty. I.e., there was no School before Friedman's move to Chicago. Also of interest was the distinction between Friedman the academic economist, for which he won a Nobel Prize, and Friedman the public intellectual whose work became increasingly libertarian as he grew older. In addition, Ebenstein provides useful perspective on the role that Hayek's ideas played at Chicago. It was interesting to see how much support each of these writers gave to progressive income taxation at various, usually early, stages of their lives.Ebenstein has made me eager to learn more and provides a lengthy Bibliographical Essay to use. In particular, he has left me wanting to know more about classical liberalism both historically and in its current expression. To a certain extent Ebenstein does this in the Conclusion, which lays out 13 public policies that should be implemented in the U.S. at this time. Still, I fail to see how these policies relate to a systematic view of classical liberalism. That, in itself, would be an interesting book to read. Perhaps Lanny Ebenstein will now write it.

I have a master's degree in economics from the University of Chicago, so I bought this book in the hope that I can understand my alma matar deeper from a historical perspective. Some of the arguments made in the book are great: it is true that for academics, the Chicago School is more about methodology than ideology. At Chicago, my professors repeatedly emphasized using economic intuition rather than relying on fancy mathematics, as MIT and the Ivy League schools do.This book's major weakness is it's over-emphasis on Hayek. Hayek is in no way even a marginally influential figure in the Chicago School. He is more a philosopher than an economist. Gary Becker, a true intellectual giant and a more moderate libertarian (Becker supports strict regulation in banking, for example), is completely missed out. A mention of Jim Heckman, who is still around on the Hyde Park campus, is a wonderful part of the book, but only a few pages. In conclusion, the book is good for less serious readers who have misunderstood Chicago Economics as radical libertarianism, but for the more serious readers this book is not comprehensive enough as an introduction for Chicago economics.

Some biographical information, some anecdotes, and a big wet sloppy kiss for the confiscation and redistribution of wealth.Save yourself the time and money I wasted on this book.Lanny Ebenstein wants to CONTROL people by controlling their money - read his policy prescriptions in the last chapter.No thanks, I'll pass.

Good as far as it goes. but unfortunately it stops before the Great Recession of 2007-8, and does not either the role or reaction of the Chicago School to that unmitigated disaster.

Well written. The author gives a good overview of complex economic theory in a manner that can be digested by non academics. Ebenstein sprinkles in many anecdotes which helps keep the material light.

I was hopeful that this book would correspond to its title. It didn't. The author doesn't like the supposed drift from classical liberal to neoliberal / libertarianism that he claims the U. of C economics department has taken. This drift may have occurred, but the author's primary evidence is the changes in the positions Milton Friedman and F. Hayek held AFTER they left Chicago. There is very little written about the positions of the economists after Friedman and Hayek left, other than the author's praise of the classical liberal efforts of James Heckman. So what's the evidence of a rightward drift? I believe that this drift has occurred, but this book doesn't document it. And why the author felt he needed to lay out his own classical liberal policy prescriptions in the book's last chapter is beyond me.

Could be a little more exciting and the author should have talked a lot more about policy rather than so much about the history of the chicago school

Surprising review on the origins of the Chicago school and how astray the current Chicago school has gone.A must read for anybody who considers him/herself libertarian.

I was looking forward to reading this book but very quickly became irritated with the writing style, the lack of organisation, repetitiveness and lack of depth. It seems that there is a constant struggle throughout the book to justify a 'Chicago School' but the author never seems to be able to empirically identify when a 'school' came into existence (was it the 1930s, 40s, 50s 60s or even later?) or whether it was ever anything but a ‘Friedman school’.There is also a constant reminder to the reader just how far ahead of any other university economics department Chicago is and has been in that 'as a US academic/commentator I am going to ignore any university outside the borders of the USA' type approach.The book follows a mixture of a chronological approach and a biographical one which is why there is much repetition throughout. There are lots of quotes from economists at Chicago (or who at some point had some contact with the UoC), about other economists at Chicago, which is fine to an extent but perhaps does not provide the depth of analysis of the nature of the economics that has come out of Chicago over the years (bearing in mind that the university is only just over 120 years old). I ploughed through until the end but with each page became more frustrated. In short, disappointing.

I haven't even read it all yet, but if the rest is as educational as the first chapter? I'm in for an enlightening ride. Why Don't our leaders read this? They quote Adam Smith ethics all, but they hardly follow what he advised.

Essa obra não ajuda muito a compreender o que se trata exatamente a escola de Chicago e como ela de diferencia das demais escolas liberais em seus métodos ou fundamentos. O autor passa a maior parte do livro apenas uma cronologia dos nomes mais importantes dessa escola e, sobretudo, faz um grande e desnecessário esforço para afastar a escola de Chicago do libertarianismo e do anarquismo de mercado. Dá a impressão de que se trata de um livro escrito para ganhar simpatia de um público mais a esquerda para algumas teses mais básicas do liberalismo, tais como de que as relações econômicas, quando voluntárias, ou seja, num livre mercado, beneficia todos os envolvidos. O capitalismo não se trata de um jogo de soma zero, mas sim de positiva. Porém, a todo tempo nos é lembrado de que os liberais clássicos e boa parte da escola de Chicago atribuem ao Estado uma boa quantidade de funções, ao contrário dos liberais mais radicais da escola austríaca, os quais fazem uma defesa mais apaixonada de um total anarquismo de mercado. Essa insistência do autor em se afastar das teses mais radicais do liberalismo deixa o livro repetitivo e, por isso mesmo, cansativo.

Esse não é um livro para o leitor sério, que pretende conhecer mais sobre a história do departamento de economia da Universidade de Chicago. O que se encontra aqui, disfarçado de história intelectual, é um ataque direcionado ao movimento liberal clássico/libertário moderno. O autor, em cada capítulo, independente do assunto tratado, encontra sempre alguma forma de encaixar uma crítica (não tão) velada a autores e posições do movimento libertário, usando como mote trechos selecionados (e por selecionados entenda-se cherry-picked) escritos por figuras como Jacob Viner, Frank Knight, George Stigler, Milton Friedman e Friedrich Hayek. A ideia central é a de deslegitimizar a posição libertária moderna, taxando-a de radical, sem base nos sóbrios escritos da tradição do pensamento liberal. O texto qualifica a evolução do pensamento de Friedman e Hayek, que culminou em uma defesa mais aguda das liberdades individuais e do livre mercado, como uma triste radicalização irracional, como se ao envelhecer, esses tivessem apodrecido, com pouca preocupação em investigar qual o desenvolvimento teórico-conceitual que teria impulsionado essa guinada. Há também muito pouco dito a respeito de figuras como Robert Lucas, Nancy Stokey, Lars Peter Hansen, José Scheinkman, Deirdre McCloskey, Eugene Fama, Richard Thaler, James Heckman, Gary Becker, Zvi Griliches, Arnold Harberger, todos economistas bastante interessantes com contribuições fundamentais à economia moderna e que possuem relações bastante próximas com Chicago, seja como membro do corpo docente ou alumni. O motivo disso, eu imagino, é que esses economistas não ofecerem material para narrativa que o autor quis construir. Por fim, não dou uma estrela pelo razoável esforço de pesquisa que o autor teve ao montar essa verdadeira hit-piece anti-libertária. Não posso, todavia, recomendar esse livro pra ninguém genuinamente interessado em conhecer a história de Chicago. Talvez haja aqui algo interessante para o leitor interessado em polêmicas, intrigas e narrativas suculentas de bem contra o mal, mas acredito que nesse caso, o leitor será melhor servido lendo Game of Thrones.

Everything ok