Volume 1, No. 2 (Summer 1998)

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)

Hayek’s economics is focused upon adaptation: the continuously changing social order requires no conscious direction. That evolutionary thesis applies even to itself; no one can remain intellectually active throughout a long life without the adaptation of concepts or conclusions. If complete reversals are rare, reconsideration and refinement of notions previously held are normal. And while intellectual thought is consciously disciplined by the precepts of science and rationality, serendipity has the dominant role in the process of discovery.

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)

Ludwig von Mises contributed much to understanding how markets work, of course, but he also showed a keen interest in language. I recall his mentioning, in two or three talks, the advantage for a scholar in economics and history, as he was, to be able to use research materials in more than just one or two languages. Economics and language as fields of study overlap in ways that give economists a legitimate interest in both. I’d like to develop this point before turning to the language-like aspects of markets, money, and prices.

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)

Timothy Fuerst (1994) has argued for the need for more banking theory in monetary theory.[1] A review of the history of economic thought indicates that, until the 1930s, banking theory and the role of banks in the process of financial intermediation and credit creation were emphasized in the writings of monetary economists beginning at least in the early 1800s.[2] In such theories, the role and impact of monetary policy on the economy follow as corollaries from a well-developed theory of money, credit, and banking.

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)

Why do business firms exist? Do firms substitute for the market or complement the market? Why do firms buy some inputs but make others?

These are basic economic questions. Economists of different methodological stripes, as well as business historians, have attended to these questions, and their work has helped us better understand the functioning of the firm, but the leading answers to these questions fall short. It is the purpose of this article to show that Austrian economics provides some needed insight to the study of the firm.

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)

The Review of Austrian Economics (RAE) recently published a review of my book Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics that, while praising my book to some extent, seriously misrepresents or altogether ignores major portions of it.[1]

Since a full analysis of the review would require twice as much space as the review itself, I will confine myself here to just a few instances of comparing the review’s statements concerning my book with my book’s actual content.

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)

Response to Reisman on Capitalism
Alexander Tabarrok

Reisman’s Capitalism is longer than either Mises’s Human Action or Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State. It thus seems unreasonable to object to my review because it ignores major portions of his work. Reisman’s other objections are similarly weak.

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)

Pascal Salin’s (1998) critique of my article “Free Banking and the Free Bankers” (1996) raises several important issues about the theory of banking. However, I think that a closer look at them strengthens rather than weakens the case for a 100-percent-reserve system.

Volume 1, No. 3 (Fall 1998)