Other Schools of Thought

As an exciting year comes to a close, we want to thank all of our incredible members that allow us to do the work we do in advancing Austrian economics, freedom, and peace.

In his new book Political Illiberalism Peter Simpson poses a fundamental challenge to John Rawls’s Political Liberalism. Though Simpson cannot be classified as a libertarian, his bold arguments will be of great use to all of us who oppose the state.

This week, the Federal Reserve raised the target Federal Funds Rate ever so slightly. The Fed perhaps felt it had to raise rates to protect its credibility, as credibility problems seem to be plaguing similar institutions worldwide.

In a capitalist world, socialists would be free to form their own socialist communities. They're largely free to do so now, although few do. This may be due to the fact that even the utopian version of socialism seems unpleasant.

The Fed's Federal Open Market Committee renewed its commitment to easy money this week. The Fed will pretend to be committed to raising rates while doing nothing, and its ongoing war against deflation will continue to make us poorer.

The fundamental divide between Austrian economics and the mainstream is apparent on the first page of many textbooks, in which the authors simply define economics.

Neoclassical economists make too many assumptions and decree that the desires of consumers must conform to some external definition of what's "rational." But consumers like to decide for themselves what they want, and when they want it.

There's no shortage of intellectuals eager to churn out new schemes for central planning.

Can Austrian economics explain selfless love?

While I have a high regard for what Austrian economics gets right that other economic schools do not, I consider myself a “Neo-Scholastic” economist, a term which I will try to explain.