In commenting on
James' post, I mentioned I have already
shown Austrian Business Cycle Theory to be false. If I ever revise this paper, I might want to make it shorter. I might also want to work in some additional references:
- Hayek, Friedrich A. (1941). The Pure Theory of Capital, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
- Kaldor, Nicholas (1942). "Professor Hayek and the Concertina-Effect", Economica, New Series, V. 9, N. 36 (Nov): 359-382
- Klausinger, Hansjörg (2006). "'In the Wilderness': Emigration and the Decline of the Austrian School", History of Political Economy, V. 38, N4: 617-664. See especially p. 650:
"...the book [Hayek 1941] could not achieve its aim, because of Hayek's lack of formal and mathematical skills and the impossibility of the task itself. [Footnote:] as taught by the outcome of the Cambridge capital controversies; for a retrospective view, see Samuelson 2001."
- Lachmann, L. M. (1940). "A Reconsideration of the Austrian Theory of Industrial Fluctuations", Economica, New Series, V. 7, N. 26 (May): 179-196
- Siven, Claes-Henric (2006). "Monetary Equilibrium", History of Political Economy, V. 38, N. 4: 665-709
Also, one of last two numbers in the 2006 volume of the
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics is on the ABCT.
0 comments:
Post a Comment