Is inflation an increase in the supply of money not offset by an increase in the demand, or an increase of fiduciary media? Hansen and Newman argue for the latter.

Turowska offers improvements to her earlier contribution in Kruk (2020), suggesting that scenario analysis is not a viable solution to the problem of calculating investment profitability.

Pascal Salin thinks of the monetary economics of the Austrian and Chicago schools as modern versions of the classical price specie flow theory, and suggests reconciliations between the two.

At least some Chicago school economists are indeed open to a genuine free market in money, says Karl-Friedrich Israel in his reply to Salin. But Chicago’s instrumentalism presents a problem.

In this reply to Pascal Salin, Nikolay Gertchev contends that an unintended contribution of Salin’s article is that methodological differences between the Austrian and Chicago schools prevent reconciliation.

Austrians can learn from engaging with non-Austrian monetary theorists. But Chicagoans would do well to pay attention to Austrian thought, as Kristoffer Hansen shows in this reply to Salin.

Carmen Dorobăț comments on Pascal Salin’s efforts to reconcile the Chicago School and the Austrian School, and suggests that such a reconciliation between the two traditions is impossible.

Patrick Newman reviews Schug, Wood, Ferrarini, and Niederjohn’s vital response to the anti-capitalistic teaching in modern high school history classrooms.

Misguided notions of state capabilities for entrepreneurship should not enter public discourse without a robust retort, says William Miller. Wennberg and Sandström’s book provides this challenge to the entrepreneurial state.

Paul Cwik reviews Machaj’s new Capitalism, Socialism, and Property Rights, which benefits from the author’s direct experience with a centrally planned economy and the subsequent transition to a market-based economy.