Did Hayek learn nothing from Mises? Why assume that he retained his positivist views once he began seriously to study economics? Fleetwood might counter that I have begged the question against him.
hy is logic, usually thought of as a branch of philosophy, important to Austrian scholars, most of whom are economists and not philosophers? The aim of this paper is to sketch a number of reasons and draw some conclusions.
The author wishes to convince the intelligent general public that contemporary neoclassical economics is not only virile, rather than sterile, but is of crucial importance for public policy.
In his important contribution, Jörg Guido Hülsmann (2003) attempted to redefine the method of economic science. According to him most economic laws are counterfactual in their nature
Sociologists seek a profundity and seriousness in their work that belies the constraints entailed in any consistent theoretical perspective. Switching implicitly, and perhaps unconsciously, from one paradigm to another provides an illusion of scope
It is a rare individual who is able to draw from many disparate traditions in economic thought and combine these into a coherent research program.
The economics profession has attempted to achieve the degree of success in understanding, explaining, and predicting events in the social world that physicists and engineers have achieved
Nonetheless, Rothbard and Mises have been criticized by Nozick (1977) and Caplan (1999), for inconsistency in admitting the concept of indifference into economic analysis after all, even if only indirectly.
Macroeconomics has developed over seventy years from John Maynard Keynes’s General Theory to the currently fashionable mathematical models that feature efficient markets and rational expectations.
Robbins contributed the most definitive modern definition of the discipline, one which is now widely accepted. Although limited by his overly restrictive assumptions on information,
