Onion Eater
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 65
Roger Garrison (2001, p. 33) writes:
“Macroeconomics in the Austrian tradition owes its uniqueness to the Austrian capital theory on which it is based.”
Judith Thommesen, Managing Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, writes:
"The author grossly errs in equating the Austrian tradition itself with capital theory, thus ignoring the core of Austrian economics: praxeological price theory. The author further spends an inordinate amount of time parsing details regarding which direction capital structure triangles lie and which way arrows on diagrams point. Although these may be important regarding pedagogy, they hardly define who gets the theory right and who gets it wrong."
The QJAE does not publish papers about capital theory? How much things have changed since Fall 2001 when they devoted an entire issue to apotheosizing the author of a book titled The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure! I will defend my “gross error” by quoting from the dust jacket of her master’s 2001 book:
“Roger W. Garrison claims that modern Austrian macroeconomics, which builds on the early writings of F. A. Hayek, can be comprehended as an effort to reinstate the capital-theory core that allows for a real coupling of short- and long-run perspectives.... This volume [Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure] puts forth a persuasive argument that the troubles that characterize modern capital-intensive economies, particularly the episodes of boom and bust, may best be analyzed with the aid of a capital-based macroeconomics.”
My question for House of Politics discussants:
Have the Austrians abandoned their capital-theory core, built on the early writings of F. A. Hayek? If so, then why does Roger Garrison have Hayek's triangle displayed so prominently on his website?
And, most importantly, did the Economics Troll win?
REFERENCES
Garrison, Roger. 2001. Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure. New York, NY: Routledge
“Macroeconomics in the Austrian tradition owes its uniqueness to the Austrian capital theory on which it is based.”
Judith Thommesen, Managing Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, writes:
"The author grossly errs in equating the Austrian tradition itself with capital theory, thus ignoring the core of Austrian economics: praxeological price theory. The author further spends an inordinate amount of time parsing details regarding which direction capital structure triangles lie and which way arrows on diagrams point. Although these may be important regarding pedagogy, they hardly define who gets the theory right and who gets it wrong."
The QJAE does not publish papers about capital theory? How much things have changed since Fall 2001 when they devoted an entire issue to apotheosizing the author of a book titled The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure! I will defend my “gross error” by quoting from the dust jacket of her master’s 2001 book:
“Roger W. Garrison claims that modern Austrian macroeconomics, which builds on the early writings of F. A. Hayek, can be comprehended as an effort to reinstate the capital-theory core that allows for a real coupling of short- and long-run perspectives.... This volume [Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure] puts forth a persuasive argument that the troubles that characterize modern capital-intensive economies, particularly the episodes of boom and bust, may best be analyzed with the aid of a capital-based macroeconomics.”
My question for House of Politics discussants:
Have the Austrians abandoned their capital-theory core, built on the early writings of F. A. Hayek? If so, then why does Roger Garrison have Hayek's triangle displayed so prominently on his website?
And, most importantly, did the Economics Troll win?
REFERENCES
Garrison, Roger. 2001. Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure. New York, NY: Routledge