Bueller? Peter J. Boettke and Rosolino A. Candela write,

Chicago price theory in the Friedman/Stigler/Becker generation was not defined by the comparative analysis of the institutional conditions within which the constant adjustments and adaptations by economic actors to changing conditions produces a tendency towards equilibrium, as it had been under the Knight/Simons/Viner generation. Instead, price theory in the hands of Friedman/Stigler/Becker became an exercise in defining the optimality conditions given any situation within which human actors find themselves.

From the conclusion:

The Chicago “Tight Prior Equilibrium” imposes a logical discipline on the world of human affairs, but it does not invite an inquiry into the diversity of institutions that arise to ameliorate our human imperfections and potentially turn situations of conflict into opportunities for social cooperation. As a result, the “fresh water” economics of Chicago still leaves us thirsty, and the “saltwater” economics of MIT/Harvard cannot serve to quench our thirst, so we must look to those alternative streams of thought for satisfaction in our quest to understand the dynamics of the market process.

In short, as I once put it,

Chicago economics: Markets work, so use markets Harvard-MIT economics: Markets fail, so use government Masonomist: Markets fail, so use markets

For Masonomist, the authors substitute the ABC’s. They write,