Abstract
Well-intended and richly argued as Salin’s proposal for reconciliation between the Austrian School and Chicago School is, it eschews a discussion of one aspect of the two schools that is also relevant to their respective monetary views; namely, their analytical method. This short comment aims to clarify why the specific praxeological approach of the Austrian school makes its monetary theory unique. By implication, as long as methodological differences between the Austrian and the Chicago traditions persist, no reconciliation will be within reach. This comment concludes that this is the decisive, though unintended, contribution of Salin’s article.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
