CHRIS LEITHNER
ABSTRACT: The Austrian School’s methodology underpins the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT). In his book and his reply to my review, Brian Simpson upholds the ABCT but rejects its methodology. That’s nonsensical: non-Austrians have no counterpart to the ABCT precisely because their empirical approach and Austrians’ praxeological methodology are chalk and cheese. In order to deduce the Austrian (as opposed to the Objectivist or other) business cycle theory, one must reason aprioristically. Simpson doesn’t; hence I criticise him primarily because he draws his conclusions (which Austrians have deduced correctly) invalidly.
AUTHOR: Chris (PhD, University of Strathclyde) is director of an investment company.
[Download PDF format of article]
ABSTRACT: The Austrian School’s methodology underpins the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT). In his book and his reply to my review, Brian Simpson upholds the ABCT but rejects its methodology. That’s nonsensical: non-Austrians have no counterpart to the ABCT precisely because their empirical approach and Austrians’ praxeological methodology are chalk and cheese. In order to deduce the Austrian (as opposed to the Objectivist or other) business cycle theory, one must reason aprioristically. Simpson doesn’t; hence I criticise him primarily because he draws his conclusions (which Austrians have deduced correctly) invalidly.
AUTHOR: Chris (PhD, University of Strathclyde) is director of an investment company.
[Download PDF format of article]
RSS Feed
