Source - http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_School
Business
cycles
Main
article: Austrian Business Cycle Theory
The
Austrian School is one of the few schools of economic thought that
considers different forms of money to be "non-neutral" -
meaning that changes in the money supply can have real economic
effects, disrupting the price mechanism and causing "ripple"
effects throughout the economy. Mainstream theories generally
consider money to be "neutral" (in other words, they
consider that changes in the money supply do not have significant
effects on the real economy). According to Austrian School economist
Joseph Salerno, what most distinctly sets the Austrian school apart
from neoclassical economics is the Austrian Business Cycle
Theory:[62]
The
Austrian theory embodies all the distinctive Austrian traits: the
theory of heterogeneous capital, the structure of production, the
passage of time, sequential analysis of monetary interventionism, the
market origins and function of the interest rate, and more. And it
tells a compelling story about an area of history neoclassicals think
of as their turf. The model of applying this theory remains
Rothbard's America's
Great Depression.
Fine,
but as long as they are not even bothering to critically consider
interest rates as a feature of a usury based lending system, nothing
of importance results.
Austrian
School economists focus on the changes in the money supply and the
associated credit cycle as the primary cause of most business cycles.
Austrian economists assert that the pernicious monetary effects of
fractional reserve banking are the predominant cause of most business
cycles, as the inflating effects of the practice result in lower
interest rates than would prevail in a stable money system, thereby
causing excessive credit creation, speculative "bubbles"
and "artificially" low savings.[63]
We
see the credit cycle as the essential mechanism of the banker's
accordion like grip on the economy; first they puff it up, taking
their cut as inflation goes up, then squeezing the money supply by
calling in loans or as the result of defaults on loans precipitated
by the same squeezing that diminishes business, therefore jobs. I
note with considerable insolent glee, to use another of Ayn Rand's
favourite words, that all the schools of economics usually do some
research on the so called “business cycle” without ever getting
to the root of the problem, the fractional reserve banking system and
their puff and squeeze accordion like money maneuverings.
Let's
parse this: as the inflating effects of the practice
[fractional reserve banking] result in lower interest rates than
would prevail in a stable money system, thereby causing excessive
credit creation, speculative "bubbles" and "artificially"
low savings.
One of the things he's saying is that the money supply fluctuates as a result of these cycles. It's done quite deliberately as part of the banker's leverage on the actions of others. Seen this way, whether they are aware of it or not, all bankers must be the worst scoundrels. There is a perceived connection in the usury based monetary system between interest rates and savings because the bankers share some of their fraudulently obtained gains with savers. But of course since the money that pays the interest was never created along with the principle of the loan, and compounding interest makes things even worse, neither the banker nor the saver are really entitled to gain anything. There are legitimate ways to structure financial affairs such that no extra money is ever needed and yet everyone with a legitimate claim makes money. This subject will be fleshed out in the forthcoming post(s) on markets.
One of the things he's saying is that the money supply fluctuates as a result of these cycles. It's done quite deliberately as part of the banker's leverage on the actions of others. Seen this way, whether they are aware of it or not, all bankers must be the worst scoundrels. There is a perceived connection in the usury based monetary system between interest rates and savings because the bankers share some of their fraudulently obtained gains with savers. But of course since the money that pays the interest was never created along with the principle of the loan, and compounding interest makes things even worse, neither the banker nor the saver are really entitled to gain anything. There are legitimate ways to structure financial affairs such that no extra money is ever needed and yet everyone with a legitimate claim makes money. This subject will be fleshed out in the forthcoming post(s) on markets.
According
to the Austrian School business cycle theory, the business cycle
unfolds in the following way:
Fractional
reserve banking continually causes inflation through the "artificial"
lowering of interest rates (compared to what they would be in a
stable money environment).[64] This can occur indefinitely with the
aid and assistance of the central bank.
...
as has been going on now for quite some time. The problem isn't that
it doesn't work, but for who it does work. It hasn't worked for the
vast majority of the rest of us.
Low
interest rates encourage fresh borrowing and new credit creation,
thereby increasing the short term profitability of the banking
system. But this expansion of credit also causes an expansion of the
supply of money, through the money creation process in a fractional
reserve banking system and misallocates resources, skewing production
to "unwanted" capital goods industries and encouraging
Ponzi-like speculation. This artificial increase in money and credit
inevitably leads to an unsustainable "credit-fuelled boom"
during which the "artificially stimulated" borrowing seeks
out diminishing investment opportunities and causes widespread
malinvestments, where capital resources are misallocated into areas
that would not attract investment if the money supply remained
stable.
Many
of these hair-brained schemes actually attract a lot of money. Much
of this is quite descriptive of present conditions.
Murray
Rothbard used the concept of malinvesment and the distorting effects
of bank-induced credit creation to study the Great Depression in his
revisionist work, America's Great Depression:[65]
A
credit expansion may appear to render submarginal capital profitable
once more, but this too will be malinvestment, and the now greater
error will be exposed when this boom is over. Thus, credit expansion
generates the business cycle regardless of the existence of
unemployed factors.
We
tend to agree here too.
Credit
expansion in the midst of unemployment will create more distortions
and malinvestments, delay recovery from the preceding boom, and make
a more gruelling recovery necessary in the future.
We have had bouts of quantitative easing, but the more important factors affecting the economies in the developed world are structural and affect the long term decline of American and European industrial production in a poor bargain to gain greater mutual entanglements and commercial hegemony. Factors that could break it would be severe long term unemployment, an episode of hyperinflation followed by bank failures, followed by the total imploding of the present financial world.
So what's the choice? We know what money is, what it looks like and how to use it. Why would we want to horse around with heavy precious metals disks in our pockets? That's for a barbarian age like the 4th century, an age of misery. What we need is a new monetary system designed from the outset to have learned from the faulty features of the old system, not to repeat them. We're sorry that Independent Exchange (IE) officers will not be able to live the gluttonous lives of some notorious bankers, but that's really going to be all for the best.
While it is true that the unemployed factors are not now diverted from more valuable uses as employed factors would be (since they were speculatively idle or malinvested instead of employed), the other complementary factors will be diverted into working with them, and these factors will be malinvested and wasted. Moreover, all the other distorting effects of credit expansion will still follow, and a depression will be necessary to correct the new distortion.
We have had bouts of quantitative easing, but the more important factors affecting the economies in the developed world are structural and affect the long term decline of American and European industrial production in a poor bargain to gain greater mutual entanglements and commercial hegemony. Factors that could break it would be severe long term unemployment, an episode of hyperinflation followed by bank failures, followed by the total imploding of the present financial world.
So what's the choice? We know what money is, what it looks like and how to use it. Why would we want to horse around with heavy precious metals disks in our pockets? That's for a barbarian age like the 4th century, an age of misery. What we need is a new monetary system designed from the outset to have learned from the faulty features of the old system, not to repeat them. We're sorry that Independent Exchange (IE) officers will not be able to live the gluttonous lives of some notorious bankers, but that's really going to be all for the best.
While it is true that the unemployed factors are not now diverted from more valuable uses as employed factors would be (since they were speculatively idle or malinvested instead of employed), the other complementary factors will be diverted into working with them, and these factors will be malinvested and wasted. Moreover, all the other distorting effects of credit expansion will still follow, and a depression will be necessary to correct the new distortion.
Yes, in a usury based system, the accordion must always repay the banker's losses with more of other people's possessions at less than original cost so that the banker can still resell them cheap and make a profit. THAT is what is referred to as a depression will be necessary to correct the new distortion. In other words they don't give a shit about you. A depression makes life hard and puts lots of people out of work, forces people to sell out their property to stay alive, etc.
Since we know all these things, the remedy is to start doing business through a non usury based monetary system without these features. Since there are no factors that would lead to any accordion like effects on business conducted through the Value Exchange Network [VEN] (that's really what it's going to be [I knew this would be a likely conceptual handle for discussion when I first wrote this]), there will be no business cycles. We'll probably see a lot better allocation of labour and resources too.
Austrian School economists argue that a correction or "credit crunch" – commonly called a "recession" or "bust" – occurs when credit creation cannot be sustained. They claim that the money supply suddenly and sharply contracts when markets finally "clear", causing resources to be reallocated back toward more efficient uses.
Isn't it wonderful when you finally change your perceptions, so you can see when someone is deliberately trying to snow you? Bankers create both booms and busts, profit both ways and yet these are necessary to correct or clear capital and resource misallocations? What kind of justification for fraud do you prefer? "We need to ruin millions of people's lives because, well we allowed too many people to have too much money, so we have to start taking it back." What rubbish! These people are probably among the most despicable varieties on the planet! It's time we did what the universal message has always been; “come out of her, my people.”
Economist Steve H. Hanke identifies the financial crisis of 2007–2010 as the direct outcome of the Federal Reserve Bank's interest rate policies as is predicted by Austrian school economic theory.[66] Some analysts such as Jerry Tempelman have also argued that the predictive and explanatory power of ABCT in relation to the recent Global Financial Crisis has reaffirmed its status and, perhaps, cast into question the utility of mainstream theories and critiques.[67]
What a fabulous whitewashing here!
Monetary
Reform
Main
article: Debt-based monetary system
The
Austrian School is currently the only major school of economic
thought that advocates radical monetary reform and actively debates
the efficacy of fundamental banking reform.[68]
All
other schools of economic thought (including Keynesian, monetarist
and neo-classical) implicitly accept the current monopoly fiat money
and central bank-dominated financial system as optimal - or at least
as not actively destructive of the economy. [69][70] This is based on
the mainstream idea of "money neutrality" - the idea that
inflation does not have real economic effects over the long term and
does not significantly distort real resource allocation.[71]
Actually
it directly affects saving. That too will be covered in detail in the
post(s) on markets.
Austrian
scholars, on the other hand, uniformly see coercive legal tender laws
(which inevitably force people to use the national fiat currency as
money) and the current fractional-reserve financial system as an
extremely dysfunctional and disruptive influence on the economy.
[72][73][74] Through the centralized control of interest rates,
through the arbitrary diversion of scarce resources to repeatedly
bail out the "too big to fail" banks, through the
manipulation of financial markets via the buying of government bonds
(so called "quantitative easing"), Austrian scholars see
coercive legal tender laws, central banking and the current financial
system generally as a source of continual disruption in the price
discovery mechanism, misleading investors and market participants and
ultimately causing continual and ongoing misallocations in scarce
resource distribution, resulting in massive malinvestments and
wrenching and disruptive business cycles.[75][76]
As
things get worse, one is likely to see larger swings in markets as
they attempt to cope with this basic idea; how much is something
worth? Eventually the fluctuations will dive to the low side
and be slow to recover because more people will recognize that the
paper chasing paper markets are valueless. Maybe it could have been
different, but the problems have always been linked to limited
liability and absentee ownership, both issues that will be absent
from the Value Exchange Network (VEN).
However,
Austrian scholars are divided on the optimal solution to this urgent
problem.[77]
Some
Austrian scholars advocate "free banking", where banks are
permitted to engage in fractional-reserve banking activities provided
they comply with the laws against fraud and are not supported in any
way against the possibility of bank runs and are forced into
bankruptcy should they not be able to pay their debts as and when
they fall due.[78]
What
good is this idea? You decide to perpetuate a fraudulent model of
finance that most recognize as fractional reserve banking, provided
they have no insurance against their Ponzi scheme eventually falling
apart? “Free banking” is an utterly stupid idea! Run, don't
walk away from anyone advocating this.
Advocates of this system of banking include Lawrence White, Steven Horwitz, George Selgin, and Kevin Dowd, amongst others.[79]
Good,
at least we now know the names of the clowns, so we can avoid
them.
F.A. Hayek also advocated the de-nationalization of money production and implicitly supported a free banking financial system in some of his works on monetary reform.[80]
Well what these clowns advocate is NOT monetary reform. What E. C. Riegel outlined was and is real monetary reform.
F.A. Hayek also advocated the de-nationalization of money production and implicitly supported a free banking financial system in some of his works on monetary reform.[80]
Well what these clowns advocate is NOT monetary reform. What E. C. Riegel outlined was and is real monetary reform.
Other
Austrian scholars advocate "full-reserve banking",
considering fractional-reserve banking to be inherently unethical,
disruptive and dysfunctional, akin to embezzlement. [81]
Yeah, that's essentially what it is. They sometimes offer to share some of their embezzlement with savers who are likewise not entitled to being paid interest for leaving their money idle. We will discuss ways in which VEN members can participate in financing that is ethical, constructive and functional to the economy.
Full reserve banking would require banks to retain in reserve all deposits that are legally available for immediate withdrawal, and permit lending only from longer-term deposits.
Yeah, that's essentially what it is. They sometimes offer to share some of their embezzlement with savers who are likewise not entitled to being paid interest for leaving their money idle. We will discuss ways in which VEN members can participate in financing that is ethical, constructive and functional to the economy.
Full reserve banking would require banks to retain in reserve all deposits that are legally available for immediate withdrawal, and permit lending only from longer-term deposits.
This
is much more the flavour of (the or an) VEN.
Advocates
of this system of banking include Murray Rothbard,[82][83] Jesus
Huerta de Soto,[84] and Jörg Guido Hülsmann,[85][86][87] amongst
others.[88]
Good
for them! Their stuff might in that case be worth reading. But I said
might. I have read so much over the years that I now regard as
complete and utter garbage that I'd prefer a good re-reading of any
of E. C. Riegel's books to anything by any other economist. I wish we
had more Riegel to read and study.
Criticism
of the Austrian School
Critics
argue that modern Austrian economics generally lacks scientific
rigour,[89] which forms the basis of the most prominent criticism of
the school. Austrian theories are not formulated in formal
mathematical form, [90] but by using mainly verbal logic and
self-evident axioms. Mainstream economists believe that this makes
Austrian theories too imprecisely defined to be clearly used to
explain or predict real world events. Economist Bryan Caplan noted
that, "what prevents Austrian economists from getting more
publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use
mathematics or econometrics."
We
will use some mathematics to set up and maintain (the or an) VEN as
will be explained in subsequent posts.
There
are also criticisms of specific Austrian theories. For example, Nobel
laureate Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business
cycles in the US, concluded that "The Hayek-Mises explanation of
the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe,
false."[91][92][93] In addition to Milton Friedman's criticism,
noted liberal neo-Keynesian economist Paul Krugman has criticized the
theory.[94]
Jeffrey
Sachs has argued that high tax rates and a "mixed" economy
(with some "socialist" elements such as high levels of
social welfare transfer payments) appears to have generated higher
growth rates in the second half of the 20th
century - which appears to run counter to the Austrians' assertion
that strong deference to private property rights (and therefore low
tax rates) are essential for a properly functioning free market
economy. Sachs asserts that poverty rates are lower, median income is
higher, the government budget has larger surpluses, and the trade
balance is stronger (although unemployment tends to be higher).[95]
In response to Sachs' article, William Easterly states that Hayek, writing in 1944, correctly recognized the dangers of large-scale state economic planning. He also questions the validity of comparing poverty levels in the Nordic countries and the United States, when the former have been moving away from social planning toward a more market-based economy, and the latter has historically taken in impoverished immigrants.[96]
In response to Sachs' article, William Easterly states that Hayek, writing in 1944, correctly recognized the dangers of large-scale state economic planning. He also questions the validity of comparing poverty levels in the Nordic countries and the United States, when the former have been moving away from social planning toward a more market-based economy, and the latter has historically taken in impoverished immigrants.[96]
We
consider that much of this may be so but for differences not
considered by either the Austrians or the Keynesians, the dialectical
pair deliberately set up to prevent us from paying attention to the
core issue; usury and its cousins, fractional reserve finance (so
called banking) and compounding of interest based on illegitimate
claims for a return of that which was never created; the eleventh
marble, etc.
David
Burton
FINIS
Seminal works
Principles
of Economics (1871) by Carl Menger
Capital
and Interest (1884–1921) by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Human
Action (1940–1949) by Ludwig von Mises
Economics
in One Lesson (1946) by Henry Hazlitt
Individualism
and Economic Order (1948) by Friedrich Hayek
Man,
Economy, and State (1962) by Murray N. Rothbard
Competition
and Entrepreneurship (1973) by Israel M. Kirzner
See also
The Austrian School of Economics
See also
The Austrian School of Economics
An
Introduction to Economic Reasoning
An
Introduction to Austrian Economics
The
Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economic
Austrian
Economics: An Anthology
Economic
Science and the Austrian Method
References
1. ↑ Keynesians Can't Predict, L. Albert Hahn, The Freeman, October 6, 1952
2.
↑ School of Thought: The Austrian School of Economics, Online
Library of Liberty, retrieved 2011-05-19
3.
↑ Jörg Guido Hülsmann. "Ethics of Money Production",
online version, Introduction p. 12, referenced 2009-05-10.
4.
↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 "FAQ: What is Austrian Economics", Mises
Institute, referenced 2009-04-27.
5.
↑ Jeffrey Herbener. "Frank A. Fetter (1863-1949): A Forgotten
Giant", Mises Institute, referenced 2009-04-28.
6.
↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Murray N. Rothbard. "Ludwig von Mises
(1881-1973)", Mises Institute, referenced 2009-04-26.
7.
↑ Mark Thornton. "Benjamin Anderson (1886-1949)", Mises
Institute, referenced 2009-04-26.
8.
↑ Shawn Ritenour. "Wilhelm Röpke (1899-1966): Humane
Economist", Mises Institute, referenced 2009-04-27.
9.
↑ Mark Thornton. "Biography of Fritz Machlup (1902-1983)",
Mises Institute, referenced 2009-04-27.
10.
↑ "Between Mises and Keynes An Interview with Gottfried von
Haberler (1900-1995)", The Austrian Economics Newsletter Spring
2000 Volume 20, Number 1, referenced 2009-04-27.
11.
↑ Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard. "The Viennese Connection: Alfred
Schutz and the Austrian School"(pdf), The Quarterly Journal Of
Austrian Economics Vol.6, no.2, referenced 2009-04-27.
12.
↑ Jörg Guido Hülsmann. "Richard von Strigl (1891-1942)",
Mises Institute, referenced 2009-04-27.
13.
↑ Richard M. Ebeling. "The Discovery of the Lost Papers of
Ludwig von Mises", The Future of Freedom Foundation, March 1997,
referenced 2009-04-28.
14.
↑ David Gordon. "Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)", Mises
Institute, referenced 2009-04-28.
15.
↑ The Great Society: A Libertarian Critique, Murray Rothbard
16.
↑ The Noble Task of Revisionism, Murray Rothbard
17.
↑ The Fallacy of the 'Public Sector', Murray Rothbard
18.
↑ For a New Liberty, Chapter 3
19.
↑ Tax Day, Murray Rothbard
20.
↑ Rothbard, Murray. The Mystery of Banking Ludwig von Mises
Institute. 2008. p. 111
21.
↑ "Has fractional-reserve banking really passed the market
test? (Controversy).". Independent Review. January 2003.
22.
↑ The Case for the 100% Gold Dollar, Murray Rothbard
23.
↑ See also Murray Rothbard articles: Private Coinage; Repudiate the
National Debt; and Taking Money Back
24.
↑ Ron Paul Interview, National Review Online
25.
↑ Ludwig von Mises "The Principle of Methodological
Individualism", Human Action online edition, Mises Institute.
Referenced 2009-04-24}.
26.
↑ Ludwig von Mises, Nationalökonomie (Geneva: Union, 1940), p. 3;
Human Action (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, [1949] 1998), p. 3.
27.
↑ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method
(Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, [1995] 2007), p. 63.
28.
↑ Skousen, Mark (2005). Vienna & Chicago, Friends or Foes?.
Washington: Capital Press/Regnery Pub. ISBN 0-89526-029-8.
29.
↑ Frank van Dun. Natural Law: A Logical Analysis. Etica &
Politica, 2003.2. Dipartimento di Filosofia, Lingue e Letterature,
Università di Trieste.
30.
↑ Keynesians Can't Predict, L. Albert Hahn, The Freeman, October 6,
1952
31.
↑ What is the Current State of Economic Science?, Erwin Rosen
32.
↑ Over To You H. Parker Willis, James Grant
33.
↑ What is the Current State of Economic Science?, Erwin Rosen
34.
↑ You Heard It Here First, Mark Thornton, LRC
35.
↑ Business Cycles and Prediction, Mark Thornton
36.
↑ Saving the System, Robert K. Landis
37.
↑ Brodie, Lee (2009-08-17). "Is This Market Heading For A
Serious Correction?". CNBC.
38.
↑ Inflation is There, Peter Schiff
39.
↑ "Values are not seen (as they are in Marshallian economics)
as jointly determined by subjective (utility) and objective (physical
cost) considerations. Rather, values are seen as determined solely by
the actions of consumers... Cost is seen (by Menger, and especially
by Wieser...) merely as prospective utility deliberately sacrificed
(in order to command more highly preferred utility)." Israel M.
Kirzner, "The Austrian School of Economics", The New
Palgrave: Dictionary of Economics (1987)
40.
↑ Skousen, Mark (2001). The Making of Modern Economics. M.E.
Sharpe. p. 284. ISBN 0-7656-0479-5.
41.
↑ "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory
of Alfred Nobel 1974". Nobel Foundation. 1974-10-09. Retrieved
2008-10-12.
42.
↑ Steele, G. R. (2001). Keynes and Hayek. Routledge. p. 9.
ISBN 0-415-25138-9.
43.
↑ F. A. Hayek, (1935), "The Nature and History of the Problem"
and "The Present State of the Debate," om in F. A. Hayek,
ed. Collectivist Economic Planning, pp. 1–40, 201–243.
44.
↑ Is Higher Inflation Inevitable?, Thorsten Polleit
45.
↑ The Economics of Legal Tender Laws, Jorg Guido Hulsmann (includes
detailed commentary on central banking, inflation and FRB)
46.
↑ Why Deflation Is not Inevitable (Sadly), Gary North
47.
↑ QE is Nothing New, Mike Hewitt
48.
↑ QE is Nothing New, Mike Hewitt
49.
↑ Shostak, Ph.D, Frank (2002-03-02). "Defining Inflation".
Mises Institute. Retrieved 2008-09-20.
50.
↑ von Mises, Ludwig (1980). "Economic Freedom and
Interventionism". In Greaves, Bettina B.. Economics of
Mobilization. Sulphur Springs, West Virginia: The Commercial and
Financial Chronicle.
51.
↑ Ludwig von Mises Institute, "True Money Supply"
52.
↑ Joseph T. Salerno, (1987), Austrian Economic Newsletter, "The
"True" Money Supply: A Measure of the Medium of Exchange in
the U.S. Economy"
53.
↑ Frank Shostak, (2000), "The Mystery of the Money Supply
Definition"
54.
↑ Lew Rockwell, interview on "NOW with Bill Moyers"
55.
↑ Ludwig von Mises Institute, "The Gold Standard"
56.
↑ Ron Paul, "The Case for Gold"
57.
↑ Saving The System, Robert K. Landis
58.
↑ Murray Rothbard, "The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar"
59.
↑ Ludwig von Mises Institute, "Money, Banking and the Federal
Reserve"
60.
↑ Rothbard, Murray. The Mystery of Banking, p. 261
61.
↑ von Mises, Ludwig (1981-07-01). The Theory of Money and Credit.
Liberty Fund, Inc.. Chapter 21. ISBN 0-913966-71-1.
62.
↑ Salerno, Joseph (1996). "Why We're Winning: An Interview
with Joseph T. Salerno". The Austrian Economics Newsletter 16
(3).
63.
↑ Thorsten Polleit, Manipulating the Interest Rate: a Recipe for
Disaster, 13 December 2007
64.
↑ Is Higher Inflation Inevitable?, Thorsten Polleit
65.
↑ Murray Rothbard, America's Great Depression, 2005, 5th Edition,
Ludwig von Mises Institute, Chapter 1, The Cluster of Error.
66.
↑ Hanke, Steve H.. "The Fed's Modus Operandi: Panic".
cato.org. Retrieved 17 July 2010.
67.
↑ ABCT and the GFC: Confessions of a Mainstream Economist by Jerry
Tempelman
68.
↑ See for example these Murray Rothbard articles: What Has
Government Done to Our Money?, The Case for the 100% Gold Dollar; The
Fed as Cartel, Private Coinage, Repudiate the National Debt; Taking
Money Back, Anatomy of the Bank Run, Money and the Individual
69.
↑ Sound Money, Lew Rockwell
70.
↑ Our Money Madness, Lew Rockwell
71.
↑ Senior Fed Economist Calls Ron Paul a Pinhead, Robert Wenzel
72.
↑ Is Higher Inflation Inevitable?, Thorsten Polleit
73.
↑ Sound Money, Lew Rockwell
74.
↑ Our Money Madness, Lew Rockwell
75.
↑ Is Higher Inflation Inevitable?, Thorsten Polleit
76.
↑ The Faults of Fractional-Reserve Banking, Thorsten Polleit
77.
↑ Free Banking, review by John P. Cochran
78.
↑ Free Banking, review by John P. Cochran
79.
↑ Free Banking, review by John P. Cochran
80.
↑ Free Market Money System by F.A. Hayek
81.
↑ See for example these Murray Rothbard articles: What Has
Government Done to Our Money?, The Case for the 100% Gold Dollar; The
Fed as Cartel, Private Coinage, Repudiate the National Debt; Taking
Money Back, Anatomy of the Bank Run, Money and the Individual
82.
↑ The Mystery of Banking, Murray Rothbard
83.
↑ The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar, Murray Rothbard
84.
↑ Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, Jesus Huerta de Soto,
First English edition (2006), pp. 98-114
85.
↑ The Economics of Legal Tender Laws, Jorg Guido Hulsmann (includes
detailed commentary on central banking, inflation and FRB)
86.
↑ Free Banking and the Free Bankers, Jörg Guido Hülsmann,
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics (Vol. 9, No. 1)
87.
↑ Interview with Jörg Guido Hülsmann, The Lew Rockwell Show
88.
↑ The Faults of Fractional-Reserve Banking, Thorsten Polleit
89.
↑ White, Lawrence H. (2008). "The research program of Austrian
economics". Advances in Austrian Economics (Emerald Group
Publishing Limited): 20.
90.
↑ Walker, Deborah L.. "Austrian Economics". Library of
Economics and Liberty. Retrieved 2010-01-23.
91.
↑ Friedman, Milton. "The Monetary Studies of the National
Bureau, 44th Annual Report". The Optimal Quantity of Money and
Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261–284.
92.
↑ Friedman, Milton. "The 'Plucking Model' of Business
Fluctuations Revisited". Economic Inquiry: 171–177.
93.
↑ Friedman, Milton. "The Monetary Studies of the National
Bureau, 44th Annual Report". The Optimal Quantity of Money and
Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261–284. "The
Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the
evidence. It is, I believe, false."
94.
↑ Krugman, Paul (1998-12-04). "The Hangover Theory".
Slate. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
95.
↑ Sachs, Jeffrey (October 2006). "The Social Welfare State,
Beyond Ideology". Scientific American. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
96.
↑ William Easterly (2006-11-15). "Dismal Science". The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-09-07
No comments:
Post a Comment