http://it.stlawu.edu/sdae/Vassei09.pdf
<= this paper argues that Mises his ABCT analysis is flawed.
Since I'm not an economics major, it took me a while to find out the major argument, but I think it goes something like this: 'Mises says that the money induced by the cheap credit will have effects on prices and wages. This should prevent a boom from happening!'
If (and only if) this assessment is correct, it's idiotic, because the most essential price - the interestrate - the organizes investment is still 'set' not by marketinteractions but by some other force.
The reason why I think this assessment is correct, is also because in his conclusion he calls for a productivity theory of interest. There is some logic that if interest was determined by productivity, increasing the money supply wouldn't have boom/bust effects. But obviously; productivity can't explain interest.
Anyone else wants to give his 2 cents on his analysis? What do you think is his 'essential' point against Mises?
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.