Volume 1, No. 1 (Spring 1998) Almost all contemporary Austrian economists are united in their opposition to central banking and their advocacy of a system of free competitive banking. However, a vigorous debate has arisen over the precise meaning of “free competitive banking.” Does “free banking” require 100 percent reserve deposit banking, or
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,
Volume 3, No. 4 (Winter 2000) According to mainstream economics, the validity of various definitions of money can be ascertained by means of a statistical test. What determines whether money M1, M2, and the other Ms are valid definitions is how well they correlate with national income. Most economists hold that, since the early 1980s, correlations
Volume 3, No. 3 (Fall 2000) There seems to be a lot less disagreement between Rothbard and Rashid than meets the latter’s eye. The biggest issue on which there is a gap separating Rashid from Rothbard (and Mises ) is in the necessity of money originating from a commodity. Here I believe the regression theorem makes clear why Rothbard is
Volume 3, No. 3 (Fall 2000) I n 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
Volume 6, No. 4 (Winter 2003) As Paul Samuelson once put it: Adam Smith is dead and Keynes is dead; well—and Mises is dead, too. But Keynesianism is alive and well and back with a vengeance. Built on solid neoclassical foundations, this “new” Keynesianism , which features the effects of nominal rigidities in the presence of economic
Volume 6, No. 4 (Winter 2003) The fundamental question we have to confront in the theory of monetary policy is therefore not whether money affects the real economy—yes it does, both in the short run and in the long run—but whether changes of the money supply can make society better off in the aggregate. Austrian economists who follow the
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
Volume 7, No.1 (Spring 2004) It is pretty well established within Austrian economics that the optimum quantity of money is whatever level is established at any given time. The logical implication of this claim is that any amount of the commodity that intermediates trade will do as well as any other in acquitting this task. This being the case,
Volume 8, No. 2 (Summer 2005) Selgin and White commence their defense of monetary systems with fractional-reserve banking, provided they are based on gold specie money. They argue that such systems are both ethically and economically defensible. With respect to the economics of the matter, they address several issues. We consider them in the
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.