Volume 3, No. 3 (Fall 2000)
In 1998 I presented a paper which argued that no theory of money was possible—in the sense of there being a stable relationship between a few explanatory variables. I was told that a theory was possible on Austrian premises and that Murray Rothbard had provided such a theory. As I am much indebted to Murray Rothbard for having supported my critique of Adam Smith, I thought this a powerful rebuke. What follows is my attempt to show why Rothbard does not really contradict my position and how my position is actually a refinement of Austrian premises.
