Other Schools of Thought

We continue celebrating the centennial of the birth of Murray Rothbard, one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century and the Dean of the Austrian School of Economics.

For more than a century, economists have tried to reduce economics to a series of mathematical equations and statistical analysis. They have failed miserably, but that doesn’t stop them from continuing down the same mistaken path.

Over the past weekend, from February 12 until February 15, Polymarket—in conjunction with the Food Bank For NYC—organized a pop-up grocery store in

The middle of the road reveals itself not as balance, but as a gentle slope toward the rationalized management of social life.

Although Adam Smith is well-known for emphasizing division of labor, his analysis was woefully incomplete, as Dr. Mark Thornton points out.

Ironically, an acatallactic pseudo-theory of money that emerged from a school of thought that rejected theory in favor of an empirico-realistic, historical theory of money now finds it intellectually acceptable, not only to reject catallactic economic theory, but also empirical history.

A. Mitchell Innes—a chartalist pioneer—wrote a pamphlet “What Is Money?” (1913) which found a credulous and ideologically sympathetic audience in J. M. Keynes.

The Austrian economics framework shows that subjective valuation is not shown to be arbitrary, but rather purposeful, as people place values on things via a means-end framework.

Consumer spending does not drive the economy. On the contrary, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship are the critical components of economic growth.

Connor O’Keeffe explains why the New Right’s economic populists have adopted a progressive myth of “laissez-faire gone wrong,” and instead shows how a century of inflation, bailouts, regulation, and managed trade has rigged the system against younger Americans.