DOCSLIB.ORG

The Austrian School of Economics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Austrian School of Economics The Austrian School of Economics The Austrian School of Economics was founded in 1871 with the publication of Carl Menger’s Principles of Economics. Menger, one of the three co-developers of the marginalist revolution in economic analysis, dedicated his book to his German colleague William Roscher. The German Historical School dominated economic thinking in German language countries and Roscher was the leading figure. Menger’s book argued that economic analysis was universally applicable and that the appropriate unit of analysis was man and his choices. These choices are determined by individual subjective preferences and the margin on which decisions are made. The logic of choice was the essential building block to the development of universally valid economic theory. The Historical School, on the other hand, had argued that economic science was incapable of generating universal principles and that scientific research should be instead focused on detailed historical examination. The English classical economists were in error to believe that they had found economic laws that transcended time and national boundaries. Menger’s Principles of Economics restated the classical political economy project of universal laws by way of marginal analysis. Roscher’s students, especially Gustav Schmoller, took great exception to Menger’s defense of “theory” and labeled the work of Menger, and his followers Eugen Bohm-Bawerk and Friedrich Wieser, the ‘Austrian School’ because of their faculty positions at the University of Vienna. As with most labels in economics, the Austrian School was a derogatory term that stuck even though the geographic identity of the school of thought was inaccurate. 1 Since the 1930s, no economists from the University of Vienna or any other Austrian university have become a leading figure in the so-called Austrian School of Economics.1 In the 1930s and 1940s, the Austrian School moved to Britain and the United States and scholars associated with this approach to economic science were located primarily at the London School of Economics (1931-1950), New York University (1944-), Auburn University (1983-), and George Mason University (1981-). Moreover, many of the ideas of the leading mid-20th century Austrian economists, such as Ludwig Mises and F. A. Hayek, can find their intellectual roots in classical figures like Adam Smith and David Hume or early 20th century figures like Knut Wicksell, as well as Menger, Bohm-Bawerk and Wieser. This diverse mix of intellectual traditions in economic science is even more obvious for contemporary Austrian school economists who have been influenced by modern figures in economics like Armen Alchian, James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Harold Demsetz, Axel Leijonhufvud, Douglass North, Mancur Olson, Vernon Smith, Gordon Tullock, Leland Yeager and Oliver Williamson as well as Israel Kirzner and Murray Rothbard. While one could argue that a unique Austrian school of economics operates within the economic profession today, one could sensibly argue that the label “Austrian” no longer possesses any substantive meaning. Discussions of the Austrian School usually take one of two forms: a discussion of the leading individuals (Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Wieser, Schumpeter, Mises, Hayek, Machlup, Kirzner, and Rothbard) or the unique methodological position of Austrian economics (methodological individualism vs. methodological holism; subjectivism versus objective theories of values, costs and expectations; apriorism versus positivism, etc.). In 1 Though Eric Streissler at the University of Vienna has made several contributions to the history of the economic thought of the Austrian School, and Stephan Boehm of the University of Graaz has made significant contributions to the history of thought and methodology of the Austrian school. 2 this essay I would like to minimize the discussion of individuals and methodology and instead present a list of the main propositions about economics, and the workings of an economy, that Austrians have argued over the years. My hope in doing this is that the reader will see the insights of the Austrians and why the modern reader can benefit from revisiting the old texts and the debates of the late 19th to middle 20th century. I will divide my list into three sections: propositions about the science of economics, propositions about microeconomics, and propositions about macroeconomics. I will limit my list to ten propositions that I consider the most important and well-established positions within the Austrian camp. I. The Science of Economics Proposition 1: Only Individuals Choose Man, with his purposes and plans, is the beginning of all economic analysis. Only individuals make choice, collective entities do not choose. There are no economic phenomena unconnected to the choices of individuals. The primary task of economic analysis is to render intelligible economic phenomena in terms of individual purposes and plans, while the secondary task of economic analysis is to trace out the unintended consequences of individual choices. Proposition 2: The study of the market order is fundamentally about exchange behavior and the institutions within which exchanges take place The price system and the market economy are best understood as a catallaxy, and thus the science which studies the market order falls under the domain of catallactics. These terms derive from the original Greek meanings of the word -- Katallaxy – exchange, and bringing a 3 stranger into friendship through exchange. Contrary to the widely held view that the study of the market order focuses on the allocation of scarce resources amongst competing ends, catallactics focuses our analytical attention on the exchange relationships that emerge on the market, the bargaining that characterize the exchange process, and the institutions within which the human activity of exchange takes place. Proposition 3: The ‘facts’ of the social sciences are what people believe and think Unlike the physical sciences, the human sciences begin with the purposes and plans of individuals. Where the purging of purposes and plans in the physical sciences led to advances by overcoming the problem of ‘anthropomorphism’, in the human sciences the elimination of purposes and plans results in the purging of the subject matter of the sciences of human action, and lead to a lack of progress through ‘mechanomorphism’. In the human sciences the “facts” of the world are what the actors think and believe. The meaning that individuals place on things, practices, places and people determines how they will orient themselves in making decisions. The goal of the sciences of human action is intelligibility, not prediction. The human sciences can achieve this goal because we are what we study, or because we possess knowledge from within, whereas the natural sciences cannot pursue a goal of intelligibility because they rely on knowledge from without. We can understand purposes and plans of other human actors because we ourselves are human actors, but we cannot assign purposes and plans to planetary movement. The classic thought experiment Austrians have invoked to convey this essential difference between the sciences of human action and the physical sciences is a Martian observing the ‘data’ at Grand Central Station in New York. Our Martian could observe that when the little hand on the clock points to 8 there is a bustle of movement as bodies leave 4 these boxes, and he can observe that when the little hand hits 5 there is a bustle of movement as bodies reenter the boxes and leave. Our Martian may even develop a prediction about the little hand and the movement of bodies and boxes. But unless our Martian comes to understand the purposes and plans (the commuting to and from work) his ‘scientific’ understanding of the data from Grand Central Station would be limited. The sciences of human action are different than the natural sciences and we impoverish the human sciences when we try to force fit them into a philosophical/scientific mold in which they do not belong. II. Microeconomics Proposition 4: Utility and Costs are Subjective All economic phenomena are filtered through the human mind. Objective realities of the world matter, but as far as in the realms of value and price they only matter in relation to individual perception of them. Since the 1870s economists have agreed that value is subjective, but following Marshall many argued that the cost side of the equation is determined by objective conditions. As Marshall insisted, both blades of a scissor cut a piece of paper just as subjective value and objective costs determine price. But Marshall failed to appreciate that costs are also subjective being determined by the alternative demands for scarce resources. Both blades of the scissors do indeed cut the paper, but the scissors of economic analysis (supply and demand) are made up of the subjective valuations of individuals. Scarcity is a condition of human existence that follows from the logic that we cannot do two things at once. In deciding courses of action one must choose --- pursue one path and set aside an alternative path. The focus on alternative in choices lead to one of the 5 defining concepts of the economic way of thinking --- opportunity costs. The costs of any action are the alternatives foregone in making that choice. Since the forgone alternative is never realized, at the time of decision we weight the expected benefits of an activity against the expected benefits of the alternative activity. The forgone expected benefits represent the costs to the decision maker at the moment of decision. Proposition 5: The price system economizes on the information that economic actors have to process in making their own decisions Prices summarize the terms of exchange on the market. In summarizing the terms of exchange, prices translate the subjective trade-offs of market participants into objective data that others can utilize in assessing their own subjective trade-offs. The price system signals to market participants the relevant information so they may act in manner that enables individuals to realize the mutual gains from exchange.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Hayekian Theory of Social Justice
    A HAYEKIAN THEORY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE Samuel Taylor Morison* As Justice gives every Man a Title to the product of his honest Industry, and the fair Acquisitions of his Ancestors descended to him; so Charity gives every Man a Title to so much of another’s Plenty, as will keep him from ex- tream want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise. – John Locke1 I. Introduction The purpose of this essay is to critically examine Friedrich Hayek’s broadside against the conceptual intelligibility of the theory of social or distributive justice. This theme first appears in Hayek’s work in his famous political tract, The Road to Serfdom (1944), and later in The Constitution of Liberty (1960), but he developed the argument at greatest length in his major work in political philosophy, the trilogy entitled Law, Legis- lation, and Liberty (1973-79). Given that Hayek subtitled the second volume of this work The Mirage of Social Justice,2 it might seem counterintuitive or perhaps even ab- surd to suggest the existence of a genuinely Hayekian theory of social justice. Not- withstanding the rhetorical tenor of some of his remarks, however, Hayek’s actual con- clusions are characteristically even-tempered, which, I shall argue, leaves open the possibility of a revisionist account of the matter. As Hayek understands the term, “social justice” usually refers to the inten- tional doling out of economic rewards by the government, “some pattern of remunera- tion based on the assessment of the performance or the needs of different individuals * Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Pardon Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; e- mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Public Choice and Public Health
    Public Choice https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-021-00900-2 Public choice and public health Peter T. Leeson1 · Henry A. Thompson1 Received: 3 March 2021 / Accepted: 12 March 2021 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021 Abstract Public choice scholars have attended only modestly to issues in public health. We expect that to change rapidly given the Covid-19 pandemic. The time therefore is ripe for tak- ing stock of public-choice relevant scholarship that addresses issues in public health. That is what we do. Our stock-taking highlights three themes: (1) Public health regulations often are driven by private interests, not public ones. (2) The allocation of public health resources often refects private interests, not public ones. (3) Public health policies may have perverse efects, undermining instead of promoting health-consumer welfare. Keywords Public choice · Public health · COVID-19 · Interest groups JEL Classifcations D72 · I18 1 Introduction Public health is “The health of the population as a whole, esp. as monitored, regulated, and promoted by the state” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2020). Public choice is “the applica- tion of the principles of maximizing behavior…to institutions and behavior in the political world” (Tollison, 2004, p. 191).1 You might therefore think that public health has attracted major attention from public choice scholars. But then you would be wrong. The Elgar Companion to Public Choice (Reksulak et al. 2014), an “authoritative and encyclopaedic reference work” of more than 600 pages that “provides a thorough account of the public choice approach”, contains just six pages on which the term health (or a vari- ant) appears.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Family a Spontaneous Order?
    Is the Family a Spontaneous Order? Steven Horwitz Department of Economics St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 TEL (315) 229 5731 FAX (315) 229 5819 Email [email protected] Version 1.0 September 2007 Prepared for the Atlas Foundation “Emergent Orders” conference in Portsmouth, NH, October 27-30, 2007 This paper is part of a larger book project tentatively titled Two Worlds at Once: A Classical Liberal Approach to the Evolution of the Modern Family. I thank Jan Narveson for an email exchange that prompted my thinking about many of the ideas herein. Work on this paper was done while a visiting scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University and I thank the Center for its support. 1 The thirty or so years since F. A. Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science has seen a steady growth in what might best be termed “Hayek Studies.” His ideas have been critically assessed and our understanding of them has been deepened and extended in numerous ways. At the center of Hayek’s work, especially since the 1950s, was the concept of “spontaneous order.” Spontaneous order (which would be more accurately rendered as “unplanned” or “undesigned” or “emergent” order) refers, at least in the social world, to those human practices, norms, and institutions that are, in the words of Adam Ferguson, “products of human action, but not human design.” For Hayek, this concept was central to his critique of “scientism,” or the belief that human beings could control and manipulate the social world with the (supposed) methods of the natural sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • 41042 FEE Text+1
    VOLUME 59, NO 7 SEPTEMBER 2009 Features 8 Human Action, 1949: A Dramatic Episode in Intellectual History by Israel M. Kirzner 12 Human Action: The 60th Anniversary by Bettina Bien Greaves 16 Human Action: The Treatise in Economics by Peter Boettke 19 What Human Action Has Meant to Me: Reflections of a Young Economist by Peter T.Leeson 22 The Case for Capitalism by Henry Hazlitt 28 A Triple Whammy for Austrian Economics by Sanford Ikeda 31 In Defense of Ideology by Mario J. Rizzo 34 Transforming America: The Bush-Obama Stimulus Programs by Randall G. Holcombe Page 16 39 The Myth of Unregulated Tobacco by Bruce Yandle Columns 4 Ideas and Consequences ~ In the Grip of Madness by Lawrence W.Reed 26 Our Economic Past ~ The Rise of Big Business and the Growth of Government by Robert Higgs 42 Give Me a Break! ~ Competition Would Save Medicine, Too by John Stossel 55 The Pursuit of Happiness ~ EFCA and Compromise by Charles W.Baird Page 26 Departments 2 Perspective ~ Human Action as a Work of Art by Sheldon Richman 6 Saving Is Killing the Economy? It Just Ain’t So! by Steven Horwitz 44 Capital Letters Book Reviews 50 New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton Folsom, Jr. Reviewed by Robert Higgs 51 The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives by Michael Heller Reviewed by Art Carden 52 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Economics by Craig Hovey with Gregory Rehmke Reviewed by George C.
    [Show full text]
  • FALL 2015 Journal of Austrian Economics
    The VOL. 18 | NO. 3 | 294–310 QUArtERLY FALL 2015 JOURNAL of AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS PRAXEOLOGY OF COERCION: CATALLACTICS VS. CRATICS RAHIM TAGHIZADEGAN AND MARC-FELIX Otto ABSTRACT: Ludwig von Mises’s most important legacy is the foundation and analysis of catallactics, i.e. the economics of interpersonal exchange, as a sub-discipline of praxeology, the science of human action. In this paper, based both on Mises’s methodical framework and on insights by Tadeusz Kotarbinski and Max Weber, a “praxeology of coercion,” or, more precisely, an analysis of interpersonal actions involving threats, is developed. Our investigation yields both a reviewed taxonomy of human action and a first analysis of the elements of this theory, which we term cratics. This shall establish the basis for adjacent studies, furthering Mises’s project regarding the science of human action. KEYWORDS: Austrian school, praxeology, catallactics, coercion JEL CLASSIFICATION: B53 Rahim Taghizadegan ([email protected]) is director of the academic research institute Scholarium (scholarium.at) in Vienna, Austria, lecturer at several univer- sities and faculty member at the International Academy of Philosophy in Liech- tenstein. Marc-Felix Otto ([email protected]) is equity partner at the consulting firm The Advisory House in Zurich, Switzerland. Both authors would like to thank the research staff at the Scholarium for their help and input, in particular Johannes Leitner and Andreas M. Kramer. 294 Rahim Taghizadegan and Marc-Felix Otto: Praxeology Of Coercion… 295 INTRODUCTION he Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises intended to re-establish economics on a deductive basis, with the subjective Tvaluations, expectations, and goals of acting humans at the center, following the tradition of the “Austrian School” (see Mises, 1940 and 1962).
    [Show full text]
  • Economics 313: Money and Banking Section 101 Fall Semester, 2016 Towson University
    Economics 313: Money and Banking Section 101 Fall Semester, 2016 Towson University Description / Online logistics / Grading Requirements / Academic integrity / Course outline Instructor: Howard Baetjer, Jr., Lecturer, Department of Economics Office: Stephens 104B (access it via the Accounting Department office, ST104) Phone: Office: (410)-704-2585 Home: (410)-435-2664 (No calls after 9:00 p.m., please) Email: [email protected] Website: http://wp.towson.edu/baetjer/ Office hours: Mondays and Wednesdays, 3:30 – 5:00, and by appointment Required Texts and readings: 1. George Selgin, The Theory of Free Banking, available online at http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=23 07 and in a photocopy packet at the university bookstore. You must bring hard copy with you for class discussions, so print it yourself or purchase the packet. 2. Lawrence White, The Theory of Monetary Institutions 3. Articles and book chapters in two photocopy packets available only at the bookstore. The first packet should be available at the beginning of the term, the second at some later time to be announced. 4. Additional readings may be distributed in class or made available through our Blackboard site. 5. Alt-M blog. Subscribe (for free) at http://www.alt-m.org/; read the posts as they come in. Recommended Reading: The Wall Street Journal. A great way to keep up with current economic news and to improve your ability to apply economic theory to the real world. Students may subscribe online at http://WSJstudent.com at special low rates for students. I may assign WSJ articles from time to time, but you’ll be able to go read them in the library if you would prefer not to pay for a subscription.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review Essay on Roger Garrison's Time and Money Ryan D. Oprea
    Institutions, Emergence, and Macro Theorizing: A Review Essay on Roger Garrison’s Time and Money Ryan D. Oprea George Mason University [email protected] and Richard E. Wagner George Mason University [email protected] Proofs and Queries to: Richard E. Wagner Department of Economics 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 703-993-1132 Institutions, Emergence, and Macro Theorizing: A Review Essay on Roger Garrison’s Time and Money In the mid-1930s, the approach to macro phenomena associated with Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek figured prominently in the macro analytics of the time, as noted in the contemporary surveys by Alec Macfie (1934) and Gottfried Haberler (1937). Within two decades, however, the Mises-Hayek formulation had disappeared from the analytical radar screens of macro theorists. This disappearance, moreover, cannot be attributed to any kind of gross explanatory failure on the part of that framework relative to the other frameworks that were present. The Mises-Hayek framework predicted the eventual bust of the inflationary boom of the 1920s, as Murray Rothbard (1963) explains. The severity of the Great Depression, moreover, can be generally reconciled with the Mises-Hayek framework. Among the means for doing this are to take into account the secondary deflation that was set in motion by the initial contraction and the negative supply-side shocks that were generated by the Hoover- Roosevelt efforts to socialize or syndicalize large segments of the American economy. 1 Garrison’s central claim in Time and Money is that the state of macro theorizing lost valuable insights and sources of influence with the disappearance of the Mises-Hayek orientation toward macro theorizing.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism, Economic Calculation And
    SOCIALISM, ECONOMIC CALCULATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP BY Jesús Huerta de Soto TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1. SOCIALISM AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .................................................... 1 The Historic Failure of Socialism ........................................................................ 1 The Subjective Perspective in the Economic Analysis of Socialism ................... 3 Our Definition of Socialism ................................................................................. 4 Entrepreneurship and Socialism ........................................................................... 5 Socialism as an Intellectual Error ......................................................................... 6 2. THE DEBATE ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF SOCIALIST ECONOMIC 7 CALCULATION .................................................................................................. Ludwig von Mises and the Start of the Socialism Debate .................................... 7 The Unjustified Shift in the Debate toward Statics .............................................. 8 Oskar Lange and the “Competitive Solution” ...................................................... 9 “Market Socialism” as the Impossible Squaring of the Circle ............................. 9 3. OTHER POSSIBLE LINES OF RESEARCH ..................................................... 10 1. The Analysis of So-called “Self-Management Socialism” ............................. 10 2. “Indicative
    [Show full text]
  • Peter J. Boettke
    PETER J. BOETTKE BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, & University Professor of Economics and Philosophy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: 703-993-1149 Fax: 703-993-1133 Web: http://www.peter-boettke.com http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=182652 http://www.coordinationproblem.org PERSONAL Date of birth: January 3, 1960 Nationality: United States EDUCATION Ph.D. in Economics, George Mason University, January, 1989 M.A. in Economics, George Mason University, January, 1987 B.A. in Economics, Grove City College, May, 1983 TITLE OF DOCTORAL THESIS: The Political Economy of Soviet Socialism, 1918-1928 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Academic Positions 1987 –88 Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University 1988 –90 Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, School of Business Administration, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309 1990 –97 Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, New York University, New York, NY 10003 1997 –98 Associate Professor, Department of Economics and Finance, School of Business, Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY 10471 1998 – 2003 Associate Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030 (tenured Fall 2000) 2003 –07 Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030 2007 – University Professor, George Mason University 2011 – Affiliate Faculty, Department of Philosophy, George Mason University FIELDS OF INTEREST
    [Show full text]
  • ROGER W. GARRISON Curriculum Vitae (Fall 2011)
    ROGER W. GARRISON Curriculum Vitae (Fall 2011) BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE: HOME ADDRESS AND PHONE: Department of Economics 2017 Country Squire Road Auburn University Auburn, AL 36830 Auburn, AL 36849 (334) 826-7416 (334) 844-2920 FAX: (334) 844-4615 PERSONAL DATA: Email: [email protected] Married: Karen Lynn (Harrison) Website: http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro One child: James Eric (1991) DEGREES: Ph. D. 1981 Economics University of Virginia M.A. 1974 Economics University of Missouri at Kansas City B.S. 1967 Electrical Engineering University of Missouri at Rolla FIELDS OF RESEARCH: Major Fields: Macroeconomics, Monetary Theory Minor Fields: Capital and Interest, History of Economic Thought PERMANENT ACADEMIC POSITION: Department of Economics September 1996 - Professor Auburn University September 1988 - September 1996 Associate Professor Auburn, Alabama September 1981 - September 1988 Assistant Professor September 1978 - December 1980 Instructor VISITING ACADEMIC POSITIONS: London School of Economics May/June 2003 First Visiting Hayek Fellow (Suntory London, England and Toyota International Centers for Economics and Related Disciplines) Department of Economics January-May 1981 Adjunct Assistant Professor New York University and Post-Doctoral Fellow NON-ACADEMIC POSITIONS AND MILITARY SERVICE: July 1973 - December 1974 Research Associate, Department of Bank Supervision and Structure, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo. April 1967 - April 1971 Commissioned Service (Captain), United States Air Force Rome Air Development Center, Griffiss AFB, Rome, New York. ROGER W. GARRISON PAGE 2 COURSES TAUGHT: TEACHING HONORS: Principles of Macroeconomics (mass lectures) 1988: Named Mortar Board Favorite Principles of Microeconomics (mass lectures) Professor Economics and Society Money and Banking 1989: Inducted into Omicron Delta Kappa History of Economic Thought Intermediate Macroeconomics 1997: Delivered Ludwig Lachmann Business Conditions Analysis (MBA program) Memorial Lecture (Johannesburg, Macroeconomics I (Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Createspace Word Templates
    MOLINARI REVIEW Molinari Review 1, No. 2 (Fall 2019) © The Molinari Institute 2019 All content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by: The Molinari Institute 402 Martin Avenue Auburn, Alabama 36830 U.S.A. ISBN: 978-1-947236-00-4 MOLINARI REVIEW The Molinari Review is a peer-reviewed, open-access, print-on-demand, interdiscipli- nary journal of libertarian research. We publish scholarship, sympathetic or critical, in and/or on the libertarian tradition, broadly understood as including classical liberalism, individualist anarchism, social anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho- communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcha-feminism, panarchism, voluntaryism, mu- tualism, agorism, distributism, bleeding-heart libertarianism, Austrianism, Georgism, public choice, and beyond – essentially, everything from Emma Goldman to Ayn Rand, C. L. R. James to F. A. Hayek, Alexis de Tocqueville to Michel Foucault. (We see exciting affiliations among these strands of the libertarian tradition; but you don’t have to agree with us about that to publish in our pages.) Disciplines in which we seek to publish include philosophy, political science, eco- nomics, history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, theology, ecology, literature, and law. We aim to enhance the visibility of libertarian scholarship, to expand the boundaries of traditional libertarian discussion, and to provide a home for cutting- edge research in the theory and practice of human liberty. INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS Submissions should be sent by email to Roderick T. Long at [email protected] as Word .doc or .docx files, prepared for blind review (i.e. all author information re- moved), and accompanied by an abstract of around 150 words as a guide for referees.
    [Show full text]