Responds to George Tavlas’ comments in “More on the Chicago tradition”, in this issue, and once again assesses the contribution of individuals to “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s.

The similarities among the writings of Ralph Hawtrey, Lauchlin Currie and Milton Friedman are re-affirmed, as is the influence of the former on what Friedman has called “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s. The underconsumptionist analysis of Paul Douglas is not integral to that tradition.

The similarities among the writings of Ralph Hawtrey, Lauchlin Currie and Milton Friedman are re‐affirmed, as is the influence of the former on what Friedman has called “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s. The underconsumptionist analysis of Paul Douglas is not integral to that tradition.

Responds to George Tavlas’ comments in “More on the Chicago tradition”, in this issue, and once again assesses the contribution of individuals to “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s.