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,

Outside of the University of Chicago, a “neglected” branch of Chicago price theory emerged among economists Armen Alchian, James Buchanan, and Ronald Coase, who provided an understanding of the market economy not by assuming the conditions [of] equilibrium, but by focusing their analysis on the dynamic adjustments required in the presence of market failures. By drawing attention to institutional solutions and the role of entrepreneurial action in discovering such solutions, they illustrated how market processes ameliorate social conflict and open up the possibility of realizing the gains from productive specialization and peaceful cooperation through voluntary exchange. It is this argument we contend that fulfills Simons’ plea for academic economics, and proves to be a better prophylactic against popular fallacies.