Austrian Away writes: "[Austrianism offers] an account that was not welcomed in Mr. Friedman's symposium of the causes of the financial crisis!" And that's false. The fact is that - in the words of Jeffrey Friedman himself - "Juliusz Jablecki and Mateusz Machaj paper in our special issue, entitled "The Regulated Meltdown," is one of the most important in the whole volume, if not *the* most important." Machaj and Jablecki are both Austrian economists, they are both associated with the Polish Mises Institute (which Machaj founded). Another instance on thinking about the labels too much, and too little about the essence.

That's another reason for which I wish Armen Alchian would get the Nobel Prize. At least it would force a lot of the folk using Kahnemanesque arguments against the market, to acknowledge some of the arguments he made. That it doesn't matter if you think somebody is motivated by profit or not. Or if he is rational or not. Profit and loss work whatever the motives and methods the entrepreneur uses. That's the beauty of it. PS. I thikn Cornelius is technically right, you could end Ariely's text with a sentence "the thing, that keeps us on track best is a free market", but thats clearly not what he is trying to say.

Mattheus von Guttenberg: http://mises.org/books/hayekcollection.pdf this stuff is not in Mises

Prof. Boettke, please clarify: you did mean base money, didn't you? It would be nice to see that update in the post itself, to avoid confusion. Prof. Rizzo, you write: "keeping the flow of expenditure constant does not require omniscience on the part of the central bank" Maybe I misunderstand your position, but it seems that Austrian literature suggest otherwise, both 100% and FRFB - the point is that for every new dollar spent by the central bankers, they would have to know beforehand what will be the reaction of the money holders. They can spend all they want, but unless they have a method of making people spend it further (and stop them from sterilizing the injection by keeping it in their cash balances), the CB has a problem. In that sense I'd say, that prof. Boettke is right by saying, that it requires omnisciense. That's precisely the problem, that the FRFB literature tries to solve by introducing competing banks, that are supposed to figure it out via competitive entrepreneurial discovery...

misclick: ...as they usually do. http://blog.mises.org/17948/lewins-book-on-capital-liberated/

Don't forget Peter Lewin! His Capital in Disequilibrium has just been republished by the Mises Institute - a free pdf is available now, a Kindle edition and the print coming soon, as they usually.