Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics - Single Articles

The times are past in which one could naively teach the cost theory without getting involved in more precise explanations concerning in particular the origin of the value of the cost goods

The title of this symposium is Austrian Law and Economics: The Contributions of Adolf Reinach and Murray Rothbard. The second part of this title is not at all problematic;

Professor Holcombe argues that Kirznerian entrepreneurial alertness enables market actors to spot previously unnoticed profit opportunities. Entrepreneurs then act upon these opportunities.

A sizable number of examiners of Austrian economics have come to hold a mistaken view that Hoppe’s and Rothbard’s stances on the nature and status of the action axiom are fundamentally incompatible.

Sociologists seek a profundity and seriousness in their work that belies the constraints entailed in any consistent theoretical perspective. Switching implicitly, and perhaps unconsciously, from one paradigm to another provides an illusion of scope

Economist Fritz Machlup took a unique goals-assumptions-opportunity costs approach to the examination of alternative monetary reform plans. During the Bellagio Group conferences he,

This monograph by Professor Michael Krauss of the George Mason University School of Law is a well-written and accessible critique of the recent government lawsuits against the tobacco and firearms industries.

Non-monetary calculation of the environmental effects of action runs into the same problems of in natural calculation and commonly owned means of production. 

This paper enlarges Menger’s theory of the origins of money by making explicit the role of entrepreneurship in the theory and by extending the theory to market institutions other than money. 

Did Hayek learn nothing from Mises? Why assume that he retained his positivist views once he began seriously to study economics? Fleetwood might counter that I have begged the question against him. 

In a recent paper, Guido Hülsmann (2002) advances the revolutionary idea that Austrian economists ought to base their concept of originary interest on the spread between the value of an end and the value of the means used to achieve the end. He points out that this idea stands in opposition to Ludwig von Mises’s argument that the concept should be based on the assumption of time preference, as presented in Human Action (1966). He also argues that whereas his idea enables one to link originary interest, as he defines it, to market interest, Mises’s idea does not. Hülsmann uses most of his paper to articulate his new idea. The first part of his paper, however, is largely a critique of Mises’s theory.

It is suggested in Daniel Kuehn’s article in this issue (2011) that MacKenzie (2010) is wrong about Hoover’s effectiveness in pushing a high wage policy that caused high unemployment.

It is much more likely that firsthand inspection by journal editors and reviewers who are relatively more familiar with the subject matter in question will place an appropriate value on the prospective scholarly contributions. 

In contemporary economic theory, and especially in macroeconomics, expectations are being given a central place. There is virtually no economic model that does not examine how, within a dynamic perspective,

Empirical analysis and interpretation of employment and interest data based on the Hayekian triangle have proved highly fruitful in revealing new information about the structure of U.S. production.

The Cantillon effects cited in Thornton (2005) are a consequence of the central bank, and result in entrepreneurial errors during expansions in the NBER’s US business cycle chronology. 

Let us begin our analysis by making the distinction between free markets in their pure, laissez faire or capitalist dimension, on the one hand, and market socialism on the other. 

Endres has done an adequate job of high lighting elements of distinctiveness and similarity among the founding Austrians (Menger, Wieser, and Böhm-Bawerk) which go beyond the cut-and-dried methodological issues emphasized by later Austrians.

Austrians have frequently criticized neoclassical economics for the unrealistic character of its assumptions. Neoclassical models are typically “idealized”;