The Chicago and MIT finance groups were divided by methodology and by free-market politics

Evidence

The Chicago and MIT groups differed in approach: as was discussed in chapter 1, Miller and his Chicago colleagues shared Friedman’s view that the realisticness of assumptions was irrelevant, while Samuelson regarded that attitude as cavalier. In the background also lay political differences. Chicago was overwhelmingly “free market” in its politics. That was most famously so in the writings of Milton Friedman, but Miller also developed a highly visible, activist commitment to a free-market approach. Samuelson and Modigliani were more skeptical of the virtues of unfettered markets and more favorable to government action. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 315

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Chicago and LSE market advocates were rarely united and often opposed — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 45; The CAPM was embraced in Chicago but regarded skeptically at MIT — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 587

Broader Connections

• The CAPM was embraced in Chicago but regarded skeptically at MIT #exemplifies (0.72) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 587