Comment on Salin’s “The Monetary Economics of the Austrian School and the Chicago School”

Well-intended and richly argued as Salin’s proposal for reconciliation between the Austrian School and Chicago School is, it eschews a discussion of one aspect of the two schools that is also relevant to their respective monetary views; namely, their analytical method. This short comment aims to clarify why the specific praxeological approach of the Austrian school makes its monetary theory unique. By implication, as long as methodological differences between the Austrian and the Chicago traditions persist, no reconciliation will be within reach. This comment concludes that this is the decisive, though unintended, contribution of Salin’s article.