Volume 6, No. 4 (Winter 2003)

Volume 6, No. 4 (Winter 2003)

Volume  6, No. 4 (Winter 2003)

In my opinion there is a reason why Austrian monetary policy views are largely not shared by the mainstream. It is not due to a grand conspiracy against Austrian scholars but due to their monocausal,often ideological-driven economic reasoning. In this context I want to follow Laidler (2003, p. 13): “This is not the place to embark on a detailed critique of the Austrian cycle theory. Suffice it to suggest that its exponents took logical possibilities . . .

Volume 6, No. 4 (Winter 2003)

Whether the current recovery will strengthen, which appears to be the prevailing consensus, or whether unforeseen events in the financial arena abort it prematurely, we will see a hefty rise in consumer prices in the next few years. In other words, an existing or imminent deflation in the US is a chimera conjured up by those unfamiliar with sound, Austrian monetary theory.

Volume 6, No. 4 (Winter 2003)

Volume 6, No. 4 (Winter 2003)

Volume 7, No.1 (Spring 2004)

Austrian economics lacks a formalized, self-conscious theory of environmental economics. But in fact all of the major elements of such a theory already exist and in that sense what is needed is to piece together the relevant aspects of Austrian economics in order to draw out and focus a theory that is already there.

Volume 7, No. 1 (Spring 2004)

Volume 7, No. 1 (Spring 2004)

Almost a decade ago Joseph Salerno, Murray Rothbard, and Jeffery Herberner (hereafter referred to as SRH) published a set of articles in Review of Austrian Economics aimed at drawing a distinction between Ludwig von Mises’s and Friedrich Hayek’s respective explanations of the problem of socialism. In brief, they argued that Mises’s calculation argument had sufficiently diagnosed the problem of socialism, prior to Hayek’s entrance into the debate.

Volume 7, No.1 (Spring 2004)