The Chicago School
The Idea That Quietly Rewired the Global Economy
In the 1970s, a small group of economists at a single university convinced governments across the world to stop trusting themselves.
The Idea
The Chicago School is less a place than a conviction — a set of interlocking beliefs about markets, prices, and the limits of government that became, for a time, the closest thing economics had to an official religion. At its core is a deceptively simple claim: prices are information. When a market is left to function without interference, prices signal where resources are scarce, where demand is rising, where innovation is needed. Any attempt by a government to override those signals — by controlling rents, subsidising industries, or fixing wages — introduces noise into the system and makes everyone slightly worse off, even when the intention is to help. Friedrich Hayek, though Austrian by origin, laid much of the intellectual groundwork. Milton Friedman, Chicago's great populariser, turned those ideas into policy. Friedman's argument was elegant and radical: that free markets are not just efficient but morally preferable, because they expand individual choice. Inflation, he argued, was always a monetary phenomenon — too much money chasing too few goods — and the solution was to take that lever out of politicians' hands and give it to independent central banks with a single mandate: keep prices stable. What makes the Chicago School genuinely interesting is not whether it was right or wrong, but how completely it shifted the frame. Before the 1970s, governments routinely managed wages and prices, nationalised industries, and ran deficits as a tool of stimulus. After Chicago, the burden of proof flipped — now you had to justify intervention, rather than justify leaving markets alone.
In the World
The most dramatic field test of Chicago School ideas came not in the United States but in Chile. After the 1973 coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power, a group of Chilean economists — many of whom had trained directly under Friedman and Arnold Harberger at the University of Chicago — were handed control of the economy. They became known as the Chicago Boys. What followed was one of the most radical economic experiments of the twentieth century. State enterprises were privatised at speed. Tariffs were slashed. Capital controls were lifted. The social security system was replaced with individual savings accounts managed by private funds. By some measures — GDP growth, foreign investment, inflation control — the experiment eventually produced results that its architects celebrated. Chile did grow, and significantly, through the 1980s and 1990s. But the story has a harder edge. The early years brought severe recession and unemployment. Inequality widened dramatically. Many of the privatisations enriched a narrow elite. And the entire project was conducted under a dictatorship, which meant dissent was not an academic disagreement — it was dangerous. Friedman himself visited Chile in 1975, gave lectures, and met with Pinochet, a decision that followed him for the rest of his career and sharpened the question that the Chicago School never quite answered: who bears the cost of the adjustment period, and do they get a vote?
Why It Matters
You live in an economy shaped by these ideas whether you know it or not. The independence of central banks, the logic behind privatised utilities, the assumption that free trade is the default and protectionism requires justification — all of this has Chicago fingerprints on it. Understanding where those assumptions came from is not just historical interest; it is the difference between treating the current economic order as natural and recognising it as chosen. It also sharpens your scepticism in a useful direction. The Chicago School was not a conspiracy — it was a serious intellectual movement that solved real problems, particularly the runaway inflation of the 1970s. But it also normalised a set of ideas that treated distributional questions — who gets what, and why — as secondary to efficiency. Knowing that is not an invitation to dismiss market economics wholesale. It is an invitation to ask better questions: efficient for whom, over what time horizon, and at whose expense? Those questions are still live. They are, in fact, the central argument of our moment.
A Question to Ponder
If prices really are the best information system we have for allocating resources, what happens to all the things — care, trust, clean air, community — that don't have prices?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable