https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/5.aspxenCommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/360547.aspxFri, 27 Aug 2010 02:52:06 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:360547AdrianHealey0https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/360547.aspxhttps://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=5&PostID=360547<p> http://it.stlawu.edu/sdae/Vassei09.pdf</p> <p> &lt;= this paper argues that Mises his ABCT analysis is flawed.</p> <p> Since I&#39;m not an economics major, it took me a while to find out the major argument, but I think it goes something like this: &#39;Mises says that the money induced by the cheap credit will have effects on prices and wages. This should prevent a boom from happening!&#39;</p> <p> If (and only if) this assessment is correct, it&#39;s idiotic, because the most essential price - the interestrate - the organizes investment is still &#39;set&#39; not by marketinteractions but by some other force.&nbsp;</p> <p> 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&#39;t have boom/bust effects. But obviously; productivity can&#39;t explain interest.&nbsp;</p> <p> Anyone else wants to give his 2 cents on his analysis? What do you think is his &#39;essential&#39; point against Mises?&nbsp;</p><div style="clear:both;"></div>