Capital and Interest Theory

 According to this writer Garrison’s Time and Money is precisely what it purports to be: an exercise in comparative frameworks. Even if it should be recognized that the comparison

Andrew Young (2009) suggests a capital-based theory for secular growth that is consistent with Austrian capital theory. He argues that investment in intangible capital 

Professor Garrison’s work in Austrian macroeconomics over the past twenty-plus years has been most influential. Time and Money and its detailed development of a capital-based macroeconomics

The “values-riches” model, on the other hand, seeks to display the relations between the great macroeconomic nominal variables (“values”) and the flows of quantities of consumer goods (“riches”).

Hayek is seen as one of the main opponents of Keynes because of the debate about macroeconomics that they had in the early thirties. 

I would like to emphasize two implications of my argument.  First, the concept of secular growth as an uncaused phenomenon contradicts the Mengerian method of analyzing 

The present paper aims at showing that two particular types of arguments in favor of the pure time preference theory of interest (PTPTI) are mistaken. 

Ingo Pellengahr’s doctoral dissertation, The Austrian Subjectivist Theory of Interest, focuses on one small aspect of these ongoing debates.

Originary interest does not spring from the passing of time, but from the value relationship between means and ends.  the means of action are inherently less valuable than the ends they serve.  

Engelhardt’s analysis implicitly assumes away the presence of diminishing returns. Diminishing returns have long been at the heart of growth theory