“Of course, it would probably take another financial meltdown to make banking nationalization politically tenable.” The political has always been the nemesis of Chicago School economists. If only we could get politicians to behave more economically rational. Yes? Well, no. Because the economy is supposed to be subordinate to the social and the political. Tragically, Alperovitz uncomprehendingly rehearses the Chicago School’s time-honored refrain about loop-holes, with absolutely zero recognition that when politicians run using corporate donations, they are obligated to build a tax code that rewards their patrons. More to the point, however, time and again v Hayek and Milty emphasized that because monopolies were subject to the price mechanism, they were preferable to nationalized or socialized industries. (People will not pay a price above what they can afford; manufacturers will not manufacture a product they cannot afford to sell, monopoly or no monopoly.) Simons and Knight, in extremis, despaired over the market mechanism and opted for nationalization, because, in their view, it was preferable to socialization.