The archive.

With neoclassical economics on the defensive, Hicks's Capital and Time reached for the label 'neo-Austrian'—and Lachmann's review asks whether the borrowing is earned. Hicks restores the time dimension of production associated with Böhm-Bawerk and Hayek, replacing timeless comparative statics with a sequential analysis in which each week's outcomes become the next week's data, and uses it to trace the Traverse from one steady growth path to another after technological change. Lachmann admires the construction's elegance but finds it bought too cheaply: a one-commodity world, static expectations, and thin substitution suppress precisely what an Austrian theory exists to explain. Static expectations betray the cause most of all, for an actor who merely expects tomorrow to resemble today loses the open-ended character of economic action. Temporality alone, he concludes, does not make a theory Austrian.

To "Austrian" thinking the diversity of expectations is a feature of the world no less significant than the diversity of preferences. They really belong together.

Neo-Ricardian critiques advancing, neoclassical theory unsettled, Keynesianism itself in crisis: economics in the mid-1970s struck Lachmann as a discipline in turmoil, and his answer is a deliberate act of dissent. In an age of divergence, he argues, a distinctly Austrian voice must be raised before its insights dissolve into the neoclassical synthesis. Hicks having preempted 'neo-Austrian' with a theory resting on static expectations and a single good, Lachmann simply reclaims the plain word Austrian. He grants the neo-Ricardian exposure of circularity in aggregate capital measurement yet faults its retreat to objective cost, and locates the real quarrel elsewhere: not mathematics but knowledge. Where neoclassical theory treats knowledge as a given datum and presumes universal market awareness, Austrian economics studies the market as a process that diffuses, creates, and renders knowledge obsolete.

When factions are already in existence, who can be blamed for being factious?

Not refutation but neglect scattered the Austrian economics that Mises and Hayek had led around 1930; exile, the Anschluss, and the rise of Keynesian thought did the rest. Ludwig Lachmann treats the later revival as a rescue: because the earlier concepts were forgotten or linguistically transformed, they must now be actively retrieved. He reopens Hans Mayer's causal-genetic account of how real market prices actually form, Hayek's problem of knowledge at once dispersed and diffusable, and the Knight-Austrian capital controversy, arguing that capital theory must be rebuilt from individual decision-making rather than from social aggregates that presuppose one evaluating mind. Offered as a birthday tribute to Terence Hutchison, the essay makes technical knowledge itself a weapon in competition.

Where the storage of ideas failed we must at least make an attempt at their salvage.

Rejecting a stationary economy need not mean rejecting equilibrium analysis. In this 1939 review of Moses Abramovitz’s An Approach to a Price Theory for a Changing Economy, Ludwig M. Lachmann draws a sharp distinction between claiming that markets tend towards equilibrium and using equilibrium to test whether entrepreneurs’ plans can fit together. He welcomes Abramovitz’s attention to investment, time and expectations, but argues that abandoning market analysis leaves those plans disconnected. Forward markets supply Lachmann’s alternative: a framework for relating expected prices across dates. This brief, pointed review offers a concrete way to reconsider the supposed opposition between equilibrium and change—and shows why Lachmann finds an implicit equilibrium concept in the very approach that rejects it.

Profits need not fall for a boom to end: they may simply cease to exceed entrepreneurs’ rising expectations. In this review of G. L. S. Shackle’s Expectations, Investment and Income, Ludwig M. Lachmann welcomes that possibility but presses a harder question: why do expectations change, and why should producers respond alike? His criticism distinguishes an explanation of individual investment decisions from an explanation of economy-wide turning points. Pauses to consolidate existing businesses, he argues, cannot account for the sudden growth of new industries; invoking disappointed expectations leaves entrepreneurial exuberance unexplained. His approval of Shackle’s asymmetric multiplier—different responses to rising and falling incomes—makes this a discriminating assessment of what expectations-based cycle theory promises and what it still needs to explain.