Talk:Chicago Boys

Why "infiltrated"?

"The Chicago Boys (c. 1970s) were a group of about 25 Chilean economists ... Journalist Greg Palast claims to have infiltrated this group" - It's not at all clear to me why it would be necessary or interesting to "infiltrate" a group of economists. Were they doing something illicit? - 3 january 2006

Since the Chicago Boys were not even an organization as such, it is impossible to infiltrate them. I have removed the statement

You forgot to sign your statement above. However had, even if they would not have called themselves Chicago Boys, there is a very specific link towards the mention of a group, which originates from business, and proceeded to change the economic outlook and forecasts of certain other countries (in south america), to achieve certain tangible goals (e. g. in particular, to push an economy more towards a chaotic state, e. g. high inflation, high national debt and many obligations). From this broader context, it becomes less important to call that group "Chicago Boys", "Economic Hitmen" or just opportunists - the specific actions are accounted and documented, both in books and national archives in South America. 84.113.183.242 (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Chilean Economists?

For what I know, they are/were not only constitued of chilean people, but more broadly young economists of the Chicago School of economics, headed by Milton Friedman, a significant number of them were coming from Chile through the Chile Project... but not all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.179.196 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, precisely, although I am sure there were also opportunists among Chilean people who would have studied in the USA. 84.113.183.242 (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Greg Palast a chicago boy?

As Greg Palast was not a Chilean economist and it seems clear that he did not work under the Pinochet administration, should his name be on a list of bona fide Chicago boys? - 12 October 2006

What is the logic behind your statement? Obviously your question shows a lack of understanding. By definition alone, "Chicago boys" should refer to those who studied economics primarily, and were influenced by a "Chicagoean" line of thinking. So how does Greg Palast/Palace fit into ANY of that?! 84.113.183.242 (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"political power"?

"..to create a free market economy and decentralize economic and ultimately political power". There is something wrong with this paragraph. You can create a free market economy etc. but you can't "create ... ultimately political power". 11th December 2006, Nstenberg

...It seems that the sentence reads 'to create a free market economy and decentralize...political power.'

Links

Why is there a link to Jeffrey Sachs? Tcamps42 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Article heavily reliant on "The shock doctrine"

I have a problem with the sourcing in this article because it is so heavily reliant on Naomi Klein's "The shock doctrine", which is not in any way a peer reviewed, scholarly work. Indeed, Klein is not an economist or historian so much as a polemicist, and relying on this work is a bit like exclusively citing an Ann Coulter book for historical facts. I know the term 'Chicago boys' was in use before Klein hit the scene, does anyone know of a good, neutral source for the term? Bonewah (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant section in the Shock Doctrine is well footnoted, mostly to Valdes' Pinochet's Economists: The Chicago School of Economics in Chile, which is published by Cambridge University Press. So unless you're accusing a respected journalist of misciting the specific facts from Valdes (implausible), it doesn't matter what you think of Klein's overall argument. Rd232 ^talk 20:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Also you could just put "chicago boys" into Google Scholar. Rd232 ^talk 20:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Valdes' book has "Chicago Boys" in the title of Chapter 6. Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Im just saying that if I was an average reader and I saw an article that was sources mostly to one author, I would be a bit skeptical especially if that author was someone as politically biased as Klein. I hope we can bypass the usual 'Is Naomi Klein a reliable source' argument and suffice it to say that a lot of people (myself included) dont consider her to be anything close to a respected journalist. It doesnt really matter, if her book is so well footnoted we can just use her footnotes to source this article, if its footnotes are not as good as they should be, or she misrepresents them, then we should look to other sources and correct this article. Bonewah (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

SURE IT IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA - if you want the accurate citations, why not cite what the individual BOYS actually said and actually did. At the moment the article is pretty sketchy on this.

The statement that the article relies on the shock doctrine is incorrect. The term Chicago Boys existed many years before that book was written. As for sources, I am sure one could find many books written in spanish about the influence of the US-inspired line of thinking. 84.113.183.242 (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree, but I think the article needs sources beyond the Shock Doctrine

I think books, papers, articles, etc on this subject have been written before Naomi Klein's book. I think they should be incorporated into the article, as to present a more detailed paper. Nothing against Klein, but I think the article leans to heavily on her book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.233.8 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Manfred(o) Bräuchle's PPT

I removed it, as it as it becomes quite clear that this is not only unsourced but also the biased view of someone involved. Brauchle studied at Chicago and in 1976, shortly after Pinochet's coup d'etat and the beginning of the reforms, was appointed Professor of Economics at the Universidad Catolica de Chile in Santiago, which used to be the "homebase" of the Chicago Boys.--95.33.116.225 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation reliable?

This passage [As a result of those reforms, Chile is ranked as enjoying the highest level of economic freeodm in Latin America. ] is being referenced by the Heritage Foundation is this institution reliable for this article? Likeminas (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One source and unreliable source tags.

This article relies heavily on one source, which is unreliable to the point where even its most sympathetic defender had to note that its author is "not an academic and cannot be judged as one"--i.e. it's not scholarship. I'm not an expert on economic history but it would be nice if those who are could add some reliable sources to this article (and end its reliance on an ideologue journalist's widely panned monograph.) Bkalafut (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ford Foundation + Operation Condor

It is said that the Ford Foundation was hijacked by the Rockefeller Foundation via Scull and Bones individuals. The Rockefeller dynasty - especially the latest headed by David Rockefeller have been involved in promoting global control via the family "pet projects" including the failed League of Nations, that morphed into United Nations (U.N.), The Council On Foreign Relations(CFR / Chatham House), Trilateral Commission et-al. Research into Operation Condor, which these "boys" had great influence. These economists are the worst type of socio-path when in collusion with tyrannical dictators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.184.220 (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)