George Stigler

George J. Stigler was one of the central figures of the Chicago School of Economics. ... Stigler's belief in the power of markets to solve social problems—and the often negative consequences of government intervention—can be seen in two of his earliest publications. In 1945, he examined the effects of the minimum wage ... arguing that it does little to alleviate poverty and distorts the allocation of resources. The following year ... Stigler and Friedman critiqued the policy of rent control, arguing that it led to shortages in the housing supply and higher prices for most consumers.

And then in an amazingly short time a stream of publications began to pour forth ... A month later [September 1946] came a 22-page pamphlet called Roofs or Ceilings?, an attack on rent control, sent in by two young fellows from the University of Chicago, Milton Friedman and George J. Stigler, both destined to become future recipients of the Nobel prize in economics. FEE distributed 36,000 of these, plus a special condensed version of 500,000 copies for the National Association of Real Estate Boards ... I see no evidence that the Friedman-Stigler pamphlet did anything to slow down rent control.

George Stigler, in his presidential address, was critical of existing theories explaining the rise of statism. He was especially doubtful about the 'mistaken behavior theory' whereby intellectuals influence the public to accept damaging state interventions. Stigler does not believe that intellectuals are the cause of socialism; he believes they are merely responding to the demand of the public in the same way that the automobile industry responds to demand. He notes that it is not the socially backward or uneducated part of the public which provides the chief support for statism.

An eminent economist once provocatively declared that economists qua scientists have no business making normative pronouncements on economic policy (or, in fact, on anything else). To make such pronouncements, George Stigler somewhat impishly asserted, was to engage in 'preaching.' As a citizen the economist may certainly express dismay at the consequences of economic policies; he may abhor these consequences. But those who initiated and executed these policies, he argued, obviously desired these consequences (which others are viewing with abhorrence).