Branding/Logomark minus Citation Combined Shape Icon/Bookmark-empty Icon/Copy Icon/Collection Icon/Close Copy 7 no author result Created with Sketch. Icon/Back Created with Sketch. Match!
Peter Lewin
University of Texas at Dallas
83Publications
13H-index
578Citations
Publications 83
Newest
Published on May 26, 2019in The Review of Austrian Economics
Peter Lewin13
Estimated H-index: 13
,
Nicolas Cachanosky8
Estimated H-index: 8
In a recent contribution to this journal Saverio Fratini (Review of Austrian Economics, 2019) offers a critique of our work on Austrian Capital Theory on the grounds that our conception of capital and “roundaboutness” does not appear to provide adequate support for the Austrian business-cycle theory. In this comment we explain why we think this criticism is wrong.
Published on Apr 11, 2019in Cambridge Journal of Economics 1.52
Giampaolo Garzarelli (University of the Witwatersrand), Peter Lewin13
Estimated H-index: 13
(UTD: University of Texas at Dallas),
Bill Tulloh
Published on Jan 10, 2019
Peter Lewin13
Estimated H-index: 13
(UTD: University of Texas at Dallas),
Nicolas Cachanosky8
Estimated H-index: 8
(Metropolitan State University of Denver)
Published on Jan 1, 2019
Peter Lewin13
Estimated H-index: 13
,
Nicolas Cachanosky8
Estimated H-index: 8
This Element presents a new framework for Austrian capital theory, starting from the notion that capital is value. Capital is the value attributed by the valuer at any moment in time to the combination of production-goods and labor available for production. Capital is the result obtained by calculating the current value of a business-unit or business-project that employs resources over time. It is the result of a (subjective) entrepreneurial calculation process that relates the flow of consumpti...
Published on Oct 29, 2018in The Review of Austrian Economics
Peter Lewin13
Estimated H-index: 13
(UTD: University of Texas at Dallas)
The Austrian School interpretation of the Keynes-Hayek debate runs counter to the conventional wisdom that Hayek “lost” the debate. Austrians maintain that they have the substantive theoretical high ground and the Keynesian perspective to this day fails to comprehend it. But in all of the many variations and repetitions of the ABCT, though of episodic interest with every crisis, the ABCT has failed to decisively persuade the majority, including even those critical of the Keynesian position. This...
Published on Mar 1, 2018in The Review of Austrian Economics
Peter Lewin13
Estimated H-index: 13
(UTD: University of Texas at Dallas),
Nicolas Cachanosky8
Estimated H-index: 8
(Metropolitan State University of Denver)
The time is right for a reexamination of Austrian capital-theory. We attempt to capture the essence of Carl Menger’s approach to capital, highlighting the important distinction between goods and the valuable services they yield (implying that goods are valuable only because they yield valuable services) and highlighting also the importance of money in facilitating exchange and production and in providing the means to value them. We look at the capital-theory of Bohm-Bawerk and suggest that, in m...
Published on Mar 1, 2018
Nicolas Cachanosky8
Estimated H-index: 8
,
Peter Lewin13
Estimated H-index: 13
123456789