[AndyJackson]

I agree with him that pure Austrian economics does not explain booms and busts.

The little failure here is that this claim puts words in the mouths of the Austrian school, who understand the cycle nature of human activity including investing as well as the next guy. Their argument is that when you get to the end of the cycle where there are diminishing opportunities for sound investment, extending the boom by expanding credit makes the inevitable bust that much deeper.

But Professor C cannot even argue the strawman he stuffed with his own ego, much less deal with the argument of the Austrian school as it actually exists.

[palmer]

Their argument is that when you get to the end of the cycle where there are diminishing opportunities for sound investment, extending the boom by expanding credit makes the inevitable bust that much deeper.

What's amazing to me is that by simply looking around at the real world, that's exactly what is happening. Where are the opportunities for sound long term investment? A 30 year bond at 5%? Equity in a company whose production costs are skyrocketing? No, I am not stupid, my money is in gold mining companies, some short term speculative stuff and cash. The funny thing is the defenders of monetarism are doing the exact same speculation while pretending they are not, by buying funds that are speculating for them.

[JasonC]

Sorry, I simply know Mises too well, and I've also had the argument at great length with e.g. posters at Mises.org. He maintained and they maintain, that without unbacked credit issuance, the trade cycle would not exist. This position is false, but it is their actual position - both Mises' own historically, and his present followers and supporters.