Some Austrian readings

I got an email asking me to recommend some readings in Austrian Business Cycle theory. I suspect the individual wasn’t asking that I recommend they read Mises and Hayek or even Rothbard. So here are some secondary sources (in no particular order):

John P. Cochran and Fred R. Glahe The Hayek-Keynes Debate: Lessons for Current Business Cycle Research

Mark Skousen The structure of production

Mark Skousen Vienna & Chicago, Friends or Foes?: A Tale of Two Schools of Free-Market Economics (highly recommended)

Roger Garrison Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure and Austrian Macroeconomics: A Diagrammatical Exposition

Steve Horwitz Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective

Tyler Cowen has a series of clips talking about business cycle research here. He also has a book Risk and Business Cycles: New and Old Austrian Perspectives – I haven’t read it so can’t comment I just include it for completeness.

The Garrison and Horwitz books are compliments IMHO and if you were only going to read one book on that list then Skousen’s Vienna & Chicago, Friends or Foes? should be the book.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Some Austrian readings

  1. Blogstrop

    That name Rothbard rings a bell. Something to do with pimping swans to the aristocracy.

  2. Grey

    The silence you hear is the silence of hundreds of Cat readers pouring through the works on the Austrian Business Cycle

    The Garrison and Horwitz books are compliments IMHO ”

    “Darling is my microfoundations laid on too thick?”
    “No sweetheart, its right out of Garrison and Horwitz.”

    Not what I would use for compliments, but who am I to judge?

  3. .

    You’re an imbecile, Grey.

    You are arguing that having microfoundations for macroeconomics is wrong.

    Thanks Sinclair.

  4. Grey

    You’re an imbecile, Grey.

    Since the entire admittedly minor point I was making seems to have gone whoosh over your head, I would say that insult was rather ironic, dot, wouldn’t you?

Comments are closed.