As some might have noticed, I have posted a few posts on objections to ABCT on the forums here.
A new objection I have seen is going against Keeler's empirical evidence for ABCT (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.196.6182&rep=rep1&type=pdf , title: "Empirical Evidence on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory"
The criticism goes as follows:
Since Keeler has been mentioned as the best empirical evidence showing that ABCT empirically is plausible, I hope that some of you guys can help defending / explaining how to understand these abovementioned critics.
I don't know about Keeler's work in detail, so can't help here, but did you try Murphy's Putting Austrian Business-Cycle Theory to the Test?
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
NicolasAugust
Keeler do not test the core of ABCT, ie., that an expansionary monetary policy causes the unsustanable boom and that malinvestments follows as a consequence of this.
Percentage changes in the real money supply are positively and significantly correlated with changes in the slope of the yield curve [...] for the current period and next two periods, reflecting a short but strong liquidity effect. The steeper yield curve is correlated with a rise in the capacity utilization in primary processing industries relative to that in advanced processing industries. The correlations between YIELD and CAPACITY are positive and statistically significant for the third period through the eleventh period. Thus the response requires several periods to appear, as might be expected, and then is consistent through the cycle, tapering off in the final five periods. The cross-correlations do not show significant reversals of correlation within the cycle, but a steeper yield curve is consistently correlated with higher capacity utilization in primary production processes.