Ludwig Van Den Hauwe

A pesar del carácter distintivo del enfoque austríaco de las «microfundaciones para la macroeconomía», la literatura sobre la banca libre contiene algunos argumentos que recurren a los conceptos y modelos de la teoría de juegos tales como el conocido modelo Dilema del Prisionero. A pesar de que no puede existir una presunción a priori sobre la posible utilidad de conceptos de la teoría de juegos para las teorías austríacas, en el contexto del debate sobre la banca libre tales conceptos y modelos han sido manejados con distintos grados de perspicacia. Un ejemplo elaborado en el documento comenta la configuración de interacción entre los bancos independientes en un sistema de banca libre con reserva fraccionaria, que a veces ha sido modelado como un juego de Dilema del Prisionero One Shot. Esta conceptualización no ofrece suficientes argumentos para la tesis de la sobreexpansión in-concert, ni para la tesis de que un sistema de banca libre con reserva fraccionaria tendería a la creación de un banco central. El autor abandona la asunción implícita de que existe una correspondencia de uno a uno entre la matriz de resultado y la matriz de utilidad. Al reconocerse que los bancos en un sistema de banca libre con reserva fraccionaria no deben adoptar necesariamente una perspectiva «miope» y egoísta, pero pueden reconocer la armonía de intereses a largo plazo entre el sector bancario y la sociedad en general, surgen una conceptualización y representación de la matriz distintas.

Desde hace algunas décadas varias subdisciplinas de la economía se ven reorientadas hacia el análisis institucional. Este desarrollo ha afectado más específicamente también a los campos de la macroeconomía y la teoría monetaria donde ha llevado a varias propuestas de reformas financieras y monetarias de gran alcance. Una de las propuestas más exitosas aboga por una banca libre con reserva fraccionaria, o sea un sistema sin banco central en el cual, sin embargo, los bancos puedan operar con una reserva fraccionaria. Este artículo comenta varios defectos conceptuales de dicha propuesta. Más específicamente, varias alegaciones de los banqueros de la banca libre con reserva fraccionaria relativas a las supuestas características operativas de este sistema se critican partiendo de la teoría económica. Más en particular, se denuncia como errónea la alegación de que una banca libre con reserva fraccionaria llevaría a la desaparición del ciclo económico. Además, se realiza un análisis de mano invisible lo cual refuerza la conclusión que la banca libre con reserva fraccionaria es incompatible con los principios éticos y jurídicos propios de una sociedad libre.

Austrian capital-based business cycle theory has lost nothing of its relevance and timeliness. The theory identifies monetary mismanagement as a major source of economy-wide distortions in the inter-temporal allocation of resources by focusing on the relative-price effects—and the corresponding quantity adjustments—of a monetary disturbance, as compared to tracking the movements in macroeconomic aggregates that conceal those relative-price effects. It thus gives us a superior understanding of the real coupling between the short-run and the long-run macroeconomic pictures and of the nature of business cycles. Despite the book’s title, and although the authors treat Keynes’s ideas not unsympathetically, the outlook adopted in the book is Hayekian rather than Keynesian and the authors’ thesis is basically that “ Hayek was right” (p. vi).

The volume edited by Leland Yeager more than 50 years ago and published in 1962 under the title In Search of a Monetary Constitution has turned out to be remarkably prescient since the Great Inflation was then about to begin. One might expect that in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession interest in monetary-constitutional matters would be revived and this has indeed been the case. In this paper an attempt is made to assess whether and to what extent scientific progress has been made in defining the nature and characteristics of a monetary constitution for the post-Crisis world. To that end some recent contributions to the literature are reviewed critically.

The author of this article argues that Hayek´s methodological outlook at the time he engaged in business cycle research was actually closer to praxeological apriorism than to Popperian falsificationism. A consideration of the Duhem thesis highlights the fact that even from a mainstream methodological perspective falsificationism is more problematic than is often realized. Even if the praxeological and mainstream lines of argumentation reject the Popperian emphasis on falsification for different reasons and from a different background, the prospects for falsificationism in economic methodology seem rather bleak.

In this age of rising technocracy economists are called upon to reexamine the methodological and epistemological foundations of their science. After an introduction concerning the nature and importance of economic methodology, this paper contains four sections. The first provides a summary overview of the development of economic methodology in the 20 th century. The second reviews some aspects of what undoubtedly constitutes the most important methodological debate of the 20 th century, namely the instrumentalism-versus-realism debate. The third section is devoted to the ongoing critique and disagreement brought forward by the Austrian School of economics in the domain of methodology. In the final section we consider the question "Where is economics going?".

Aunque la interpretación de Minsky de la macroeconomía de Keynes y Aunque su mensaje esencial choca con interpretaciones alternativas autorizadas, se ha vuelto cada vez más influyente durante los años posteriores a la crisis financiera mundial, incluso en los círculos dominantes. Este artículo ofrece una evaluación crítica de la hipótesis de inestabilidad financiera de Minsky desde la perspectiva del paradigma austro-wickselliano alternativo. Aunque algunas de las similitudes y/o analogías entre el enfoque de Minsky y el de la Escuela Austriaca sugieren una afinidad más que meramente superficial entre los dos marcos teóricos y aunque se puede encontrar cierto margen para la fertilización cruzada entre ambos enfoques, tanto teórica como empíricamente, en un nivel conceptual fundamental ambas teorías siguen siendo incompatibles y difíciles, si no imposibles, de conciliar, en particular en términos de causalidad fundamental y en términos de conclusiones y prescripciones políticas. A pesar de que las conclusiones políticas de Minsky son multifacéticas y algo eclécticas, manifiestan una falta de familiaridad con las conclusiones del análisis austriaco de los problemas de la planificación central por parte de los grandes actores como los grandes bancos y los grandes gobiernos. Ambos enfoques también ofrecen interpretaciones contrastantes de la experiencia histórica de la crisis financiera global.

No que diz respeito aos pontos de vista sobre a probabilidade de Ludwig von Mises, é inegavelmente verdade que estes apresentam nuances consideráveis e que podem ser considerados como sendo de uma variedade sui generis. Mesmo que as visões de Ludwig von Mises sobre probabilidade exibam uma afinidade conceitual mais próxima com a filosofia de probabilidade de Keynes do que com a interpretação de frequência defendida por seu irmão Richard von Mises, uma importante diferença entre as visões de Ludwig von Mises e de John Maynard Keynes a esse respeito será, no entanto, reconhecido.

On a few occasions F.A. Hayek made reference to the famous Gödel theorems in mathematical logic in the context of expounding his cognitive and social theory. The exact meaning of the supposed relationship between Gödel's theorems and the essential proposition of Hayek's theory of mind remains subject to interpretation, however. The author of this article argues that the relationship between Hayek's thesis that the human brain can never fully explain itself and the essential insight provided by Gödel's theorems in mathematical logic has the character of an analogy, or a metaphor. Furthermore the anti-mechanistic interpretation of Hayek's theory of mind is revealed as highly questionable. Implications for the Socialist Calculation Debate are highlighted. It is in particular concluded that Hayek's arguments for methodological dualism, when compared with those of Ludwig von Mises, actually amount to a strengthening of the case for methodological dualism. Keywords:

This paper critically explores some supposed implications of the development of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly also machine learning (ML), for how we conceive of the role of entrepreneurship in the economy. The question of the impact of AI and ML is examined by hypothesizing a decentral- ized market-based system and raising the question of whether entrepreneurs will someday likely be replaced by machines. The answer turns out to be highly skeptical. Not only does the materialist worldview behind the ambitions of much AI research cast serious doubts upon the chances of success of any attempts to emulate entrepreneurship algorithmically with the help of comput- ers, the very possibility of artificial general intelligence (AGI) can also be ruled out on purely scientific grounds. The paper concludes that human entrepreneurs will remain the driving force of the market.

Although Minsky’s interpretation of Keynes’s macroeconomics and essential message clashes with authoritative alternative interpretations, it has become increasingly influential during the years following the Global Financial Crisis, even in mainstream circles. This paper offers a critical evaluation of Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis from the perspective of the alternative Austro-Wicksellian paradigm. Although some of the similarities and/or analogies between Minsky’s approach and that of the Austrian School suggest a more than merely superficial affinity between the two theoretical frameworks and although some scope for cross-fertilization between both approaches can be found, both theoretically and empirically, at a fundamental conceptual level both theories remain incompatible and difficult if not impossible to reconcile, in particular in terms of fundamental causality and in terms of policy conclusions and prescriptions. Despite the fact that Minsky’s policy conclusions are multifaceted and somewhat eclectic, they manifest a lack of familiarity with the conclusions of the Austrian analysis of the problems of central planning by Big Players such as Big Bank and Big Government. Both approaches also offer contrasting interpretations of the historical experience of the Global Financial Crisis.