Search results

The theory of monopoly price was originally formulated by Carl Menger at the inception of the marginalist revolution in 1871 and represented the dominant theoretical approach to monopoly until the 1930s. Despite its impeccable doctrinal pedigree and lengthy dominance, the theory abruptly disappeared from the mainstream neoclassical literature after the Monopolistic Competition Revolution, to be revived and reformulated after World War II by Ludwig von Mises. The present paper describes the theory as it was offered in its most sophisticated pre‐war form by American economist Vernon A. Mund, who published an unjustifiably neglected volume on monopoly theory that appeared in the same year as the classic works by Joan Robinson and Edward Chamberlain. This paper then attempts to draw out the critical implications of Mund’s formulation of the theory for the current neoclassical orthodoxy in monopoly and competition theory, including the elasticity of demand curves facing individual producers under competition, the time perspectives that are most relevant in analyzing the pricing process, the proper role of long‐run equilibrium in this analysis, and the misapplication of the marginal revenue and marginal cost concepts. Finally, the paper suggests a number of reasons why the theory was swept aside in the aftermath of the Chamberlain/Robinson Revolution with almost no resistance from its most prominent exponents.

The aim of this paper is to show that there is need for revitalization of the normative branch of political economy. The first part of this paper will deal with some methodological reservations against a participation of economists in a rational discussion of normative issues. The second and third parts will outline the approaches and problems of two unconventional schools of thought in present‐day economics which make attempts to strive for a reconciliation of positive and normative economics.

This essay offers a review of von Mises’ classic Nation, State and Economy(1919). It focuses specifically on the contexts of liberty, the issue of language and nation.

Menger′s Grundsätze is explored; the Aristotelian background of the discourse is probed, as is the problematic image of Menger sketched in the secondary literature as soon as it is confronted with this Aristotelanism and with the subjective value theory and the motif of time, error and uncertainty. The conflicting elements of this picture are pieced together.

The purpose of this paper is to examine modern monetary policy as practiced and promoted by the officials of Central Banks, with the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA and the Bank of Japan in leading roles.

Modern monetary policy is assessed for its rhetoric and its philosophies steeped in Keynesian traditions. The fallacies of relying on patently incorrect economic theory with specific critique on the assumption that saving is equal to investment (S=I) is exposed in the policy failures of themes such as quantitative easing, approaching the zero bound, wealth effects, the liquidity trap, forbearance lending and an unwavering belief in the power to inflate. An alternative credit theory is presented and discussed to explain the accumulation of monetary interventions in the modern banking environment. The credit theory is further expanded to evaluate an economy in distress as a result of an accumulation of monetary stimulations against a background of the philosophies of the Austrian school of economics.

Three decisive monetary policy outcomes are identified and substantiated in the Austrian philosophy of laissez faire; the probable outcome of modern monetary policies in deflationary stasis; and the destructive outcome of extreme monetary and fiscal interventions resulting in a hyperinflationary depression and destruction of the money unit.

The conceptual framework and content of the paper are mostly original and will contribute to the study of political and monetary economics.

THE annual election of the Library Association Council for 1946 is over. Of course, only a small part of the Council has been before the electors. The results follow an old‐established precedent, but are nevertheless curious. Why is it that country members seem not to be interested in their selection of candidates who come from the metropolitan area? There were two to be elected for London and those successful were Frank M. Gardner with 572 and Captain Richard Wright with 501 votes; there were five Country Councillors required and Miss M. F. Austin (854) and Messrs. W. A. Munford (831), F. G. B. Hutchings (817), E. Wisker (716) and E. Osborne (601) were elected. Besides the London candidates who were successful by ballot, Mr. W. B. Stevenson (447) and Mr. E. Sydney (360) will serve on the Council for shorter periods in the room of Mr. J. D. Stewart and S/Ldr. J. D. Cowley. It will therefore be seen that there is considerable disparity in the voting for the two parts of the Council. As we say, this is rather curious as it follows a long established tradition. The new members are Mr. Gardner, Mr. Stevenson, Miss Austin, Mr. Munford and Mr. Wisker; this appears to us to be a very interesting and useful team. They have already shown by definite work, mostly in the A.A.L., that they are qualified leaders amongst the younger librarians. We wish them good fortune in the carrying out of their part in the reconstruction period ahead.

The Austrian school developed a specific kind of economic analysis. Mises′ place in this school of thought and his praxeological point of view is discussed. His philosophical stance and its methodological implications are then considered.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

Since the late 1970s there have been a number of articles devoted to re‐evaluating the issues and arguments involved in the debate concerning comparative economic systems. The present state of this continuing debate is evaluated with regard to modern theories of planning, bureaucracy, motivation and property rights. It appears that the debate has not been settled yet.

Austrian views on money and the gold standard are consonant with the general characteristics of the school. First, Austrians are concerned with the complete picture, with how a whole economic system and alternative sets of institutions function. They are alert to the question of unplanned order and of how the decentralised decisions and specialised activities of millions of people can mesh without central planning. They investigate how the market and prices function as a vast communications system and computer, transmitting information and incentives and so enlisting knowledge scattered over many millions of minds that would otherwise necessarily go to waste. They recognise why accurate economic calculation is impossible under socialism. Second, the Austrians appreciate the implications of incomplete, imperfect and scattered knowledge and also the implications of change and unpredictability in human affairs. They pay attention to disequilibrium, to processes as well as end positions, and to entrepreneurial altertness and creativity. Instead of supposing, for example, that cost curves and demand curves are somehow “given” to business decision makers, they recognise it as one of the functions of the competitive process to press for discovery of ways to get the cost curves down — if one speaks of such curves at all. Third, Austrians have certain methodological predilections. They reject the tacit view of economic activity as the result of interplay among objective conditions and impersonal forces. They take pains to trace their analyses back to the subjective perceptions, decisions and actions of individuals trying to cope with a complex and unpredictably changeable world; they recognise introspection as one legitimate source of the facts underpinning economic theory. (While thus practising methodological individualism, they do not subordinate the big question of system‐wide co‐ordination to an excessively narrow focus on the administration of individual firms and households.) Finally, although Austrians like to think of their economics as value‐free and not logically tied to any particular policy position, their insights into positive economics, coupled with plausible value judgements of a humanitarian and individualistic nature, undeniably do lead them to favour free markets.