This is too technical for Mises.org and too short for an academic journal, so I decided to upload this short criticism of monetary disequilibrium to ssrn: "Prices and the Demand for Money".
Just posting it here if anybody is interested; I don't really have any other way of putting it out there (no blog).
Interesting article Jonathan, I think if you try to flesh out your arguments in a bit more detail, it could make for an excellent journal article (probably for an Austrian journal). I understand however, if you don't want to hassle yourself with that atm though.
I've had similar thoughts for some time actually, the price-level doctrine of monetary equilibrium espoused by the free bankers has never made much sense to me in light of a modern Austrian understanding of the operation of the structured market pricing process. With regard to the former doctrine, I found Guido Hulsmann's comments regarding its historical origins from his Introduction to Strigl's Capital and Production quite enlightening (see especially pp.xx-xxvii). Indeed, what's most interesting is that Strigl's and Hayek's notions about the dis-equilibria that could be caused by "irregular" changes in the demand for money goes back to Wieser's thoughts regarding whether monetary exchanges could properly mimic a "neutral" barter economy through "complementary transactions," quite in contrast, with Mises ideas of the unavoidable monetary characteristic of prices without comparabillity to some fictional notion of a barter economy.
What is also interesting is that this also ties in somewhat with Wicksell's thoughts on what could be a "neutral interest rate", in terms of matching that which would appear on a barter economy. Frank Shostak gave quite a provocative and intriguing talk on this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9CLuCUMSGY
(It was also published as a Mises daily, but I just love his accent!)
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
On 2nd thought, Jonathan have you considered sending this to the Cobden Centre? The subject matter seems to occupy the majority of the debates there, so I think you might have more chance of it being published there and not being labelled "too technical."
Do they have a submission process? I see their contact form, but is there another way to contact them with the article attached?
I believe Mark Goodhand is in charge of accepting and putting up article submissions. His email is [email protected] (they should really put that up on the site somehwere)
Thank you; shot him an email.