delta1 wrote:here's a piece by the non-partisan American Institute for Economic Research, with the major critique being that the ABCT is incomplete, neglecting government's, or other outside forces,' role in responding to booms and busts...too focused on the market itself...
https://www.aier.org/article/what-austrian-business-cycle-theory-does-not-predict/
I don't think you're getting the drift of the article, nowhere was Salter disproving or making a critique of ABCT, he was just explaining what it was not meant to predict or could predict, something critics seem to conveniently fail to mention.
Quote:ABCT is frequently criticized because the theory cannot explain the length or size of the boom and bust. For example, some argue that it is not credible that swings in (short-run) market interest rates can result in extended downturns. This critique is misplaced. ABCT is not a theory that predicts how long the boom will last, or for how long the bust will last, or how big either of these are. These factors, while obviously important and deserving of study, are outside the scope of the theory. ABCT is exclusively a theory of the unsustainable boom—an explanation for why central bank-driven booms must necessarily turn to busts.
BTW, the American Institute for Economic Research is largely an Austrian Economics Free Market institution. Many of their writers and fellows are Austrian School Economists. Just to name two,
Edward P. Stringham, the current President of AIER is an Austrian School economist
Jeffrey A. Tucker before being Editorial Director at AIER worked for the Mises Institute.
Their AIERvideo YouTube channel produces Austrian Economics based educational material including The Mises vs. Marx Rap video series.