Por Gabriel J. Zanotti. Publicado el 26/11/17 en:


Innumerables han sido las veces que se ha intentado presentar a Mises y Hayek como dos autores contrapuestos. Claro, si ello implica que eran dos autores diferentes, cabe reconocer que los que se han empeñado en marcar sus diferencias han logrado demostrar su obviedad.

Un caso que ha quedado habitualmente desatendido, y que sin embargo es esencial, es la primera elaboración clara de Mises del mercado como proceso, que no fue en su juventud, sino a sus 60 años, cuando se puso a escribir la segunda versión de lo que sería luego Human Action. Como muchos saben, en los caps. 15 y 16 queda claramente escrito que el mercado es un proceso que tiende a la construcción imaginaria de estado final de reposo, sin alcanzarla nunca. Y que ese dinamismo tiene que ver con la figura del empresario que busca ganancias en el mercado, que, contrariamente a lo supuesto por Shumpeter, es un factor equilibrante en el proceso. Todo ello fue fundamental para que luego Israel Kirzner desarrollara su teoría de la alertness empresarial y distinguiera claramente al mercado como proceso de las escuelas neoclásicas de equilibrio.

Lo que habitualmente queda en el silencio es la referencia decisiva de Mises a Hayek en el desarrollo de la teoría del mercado tal cual la presenta en Human Action. Desde luego, y todos conocemos la historia, que Hayek “se convierte” al mercado libre luego de que Mises desarrollara la imposibilidad de cálculo económico en el socialismo, pero todos debemos recordar que el Mises y Hayek de aquellas épocas no diferenciaban entre la Escuela Austríaca y las demás escuelas neoclásicas como luego lo hace el Austrial revival a partir de 1974. De hecho, Hayek comienza a desarrollar su teoría de mercado en conocimiento disperso, como señala Caldwell, cuando desarrolla su teoría del ciclo en 1931, donde el des-equilibrio entre ahorro e inversión era una especie de excepción a la teoría del equilibrio general[1]. NO es casualidad que luego de ello, Hayek escribiera sus tres seminales artículos para el desarrollo del mercado como proceso: Economics and Knowledge en 1936, The Use of Knowledge in Society en 1945 y The Meaning of Competition en 1946, donde por primera vez un austríaco señala con claridad las diferencias esenciales con los modelos de competencia perfecta.

Ahora bien, la primera edición de Individualism and Economic Order, donde esos tres artículos aparecen sistemáticamente publicados, es de 1948, y Human Action es publicada en 1949. Y no es casualidad que cuando Mises está desarrollando su teoría del mercado, cite precisamente a Individualism and Economic Order[2], especialmente a The Meaning of Competition. O sea, claramente Mises cita a Hayek en algo esencial para su propia teoría de los precios.

Por lo tanto: autores diferentes, sí. Pero formaron parte de un mismo programa de investigación: la teoría del mercado como proceso, sistematizada luego por Israel M. Kirzner.


[1] ESA era “la teoría”, para Hayek, en esa época, y por POR ESO dice que el cálculo económico era posible “en teoría” pero imposible en la práctica. Porque “la praxis” del mercado es precisamente el factor aprendizaje, que no formaba parte, en su tiempo, de “la teoría” del mercado. El proceso de mercado como teoría será desarrollado unos 45 años después a partir del seminal libro de Kirzner Competencia y función empresarial (1973), donde sus discípulos comenzaron a distinguir claramente entre “la teoría austríaca” del mercado como proceso y la diversas teorías neoclásicas.

[2] La cita de Mises es la 13, del cap. 15, y dice así: “… For a refutation of the fashionable doctrines of imperfect and of monopolistic competition, F. A. von Hayek,  Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago, 1948), pp. 92-118”


Gabriel J. Zanotti es Profesor y Licenciado en Filosofía por la Universidad del Norte Santo Tomás de Aquino (UNSTA), Doctor en Filosofía, Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA). Es Profesor titular, de Epistemología de la Comunicación Social en la Facultad de Comunicación de la Universidad Austral. Profesor de la Escuela de Post-grado de la Facultad de Comunicación de la Universidad Austral. Profesor co-titular del seminario de epistemología en el doctorado en Administración del CEMA. Director Académico del Instituto Acton Argentina. Profesor visitante de la Universidad Francisco Marroquín de Guatemala. Fue profesor Titular de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales en el Master en Economía y Ciencias Políticas de ESEADE, y miembro de su departamento de investigación.

Juan C. Cachanosky (1953 – 2015): See you in our next morning walk

Por Nicolás Cachanosky. Publicado el 4/1/16 en:


Foto - 20

These are probably the most difficult lines I’ll have to write in a very long time, if not ever. In a premature way, JCC, my dad, died on December 31st, 2015. Frank Sinatra was probably his favorite singer. And his version of “May Way” probably his favorite song. He certainly lived his life his way. He died in peace doing what he loved most, doing economics and spreading the ideas of classical liberalism. For him to work during the afternoon of the last day of the year was the most natural thing to do. He achieved what most want but not everyone can: A loving family that will miss him dearly, more friends than one can count, and international academic recognition despite not being know for his “academic journal papers.” He did it, indeed, his way.

Surely my personal experience with him is different to those of many. I’m not only his son, I’m also an economist with an academic career and is impossible for me to separate both things. If anything, I rather focus on my personal experience (introspection maybe?) than on a summary of his personal life which others are more suitable to tell. I want to remember him by reflecting, maybe for the first time, how much he influenced me on key points of my life.

I cherish warm reminiscences with him since I have use of my memory. From playing video games together in our first Commodore 64 (mid 80s version of a PC), to our morning walkings along Pinamar’s beach, the both of us and sometimes with my sibllings where I would ask him all sort of questions (economics, history, philosophy, physics, etc.) Those morning walk were among the favorite part of my days and remain as one of my most cherished memories of our old times. How much I’d love to have one last walk with him.

My first contact with economics was, of course, through him. But not without some initial mistakes on my part. In elementary school (as I was told by my mom I think), we were asked what our dads do for work. At my turn I said that “My dad is a communist (producing a white-pale face in our teacher, and quietly moving on).” In Spanish, communist and economist sound similar enough for a younger version of me to get confused. I know now, that if dad didn’t kick me out from home, his patience was indeed almost unlimited. When I started high school I wanted to become an astronomer due to an astronomy book my mom gave my for my birthday. Years later I passed that book to my sister, who actually started astronomy and then moved to physics. By mid high school I shifted my interested from astronomy to physics after reading different physics books from my dads bookshelf (George Gamow is what I remember most.) Then I could do a specialization in astronomy (astrophysics) if I felt inclined to (I now realize my sister might be living my parallel life. I gave her a few economics books too, but apparently I don’t have my dad’s magic powers). I wanted to understand how this huge universe of which we are an insignificant dot in space is possible and works by itself (I can’t say I ever was a religious person). But in mid high school we were required to write a short essay on a controversial topic; meaning an essay that would be open to debate different opinions in class. I saw that as an opportunity to explore some economics: what dad does for life that gets him all this respect I see in people around him! I chose to write why to build new machines does not increase unemployment. I couldn’t pin down by myself why that would be the case. Two things happened.

First, he walked me through the value added process of production with more capital or higher technology step-by-step to the point that a young 14 year old kid would say “duh!” (I actually think it might been on a napkin.) The conclusion that machines do not produce unemployment didn’t surprise me, I was expecting that already. But the strength of an argument that did not require to much (any?) empiric had an effect that left a strong impression in a mind that was used to think about empiric problems of physics. How do you show something that cannot be shown and still be convincing? I don’t know, and now never will, if he realized that in retrospection a 20 minutes talk produced the most important inflection point in my life. It wasn’t the explanation, it was how it was explained. I’m not surprised of all the positive comments we received the last few days of him as professor. There was no lecture by him I would attended were I wouldn’t learn something new, even if it was on a topic I’ve heard him lecture before.

The second thing that a happened is that he gave me four books to read. If I recall the order correctly (1) a cartoon-type book by Luis Pazos which I can’t remember the title, (2) Hazzlit’s Economics in One Lesson, (3) Hayek’s Individualism and Economic Order and (4) Mises’s Planning for Freedom. After these readings there was no question on my mind. It doesn’t matter how hard physics and astronomy might be, economics deals with unintended consequences of living things that do not react to the law of nature. In my mind economics became the really hard (difficulty) science (from some time I entertained the idea of doing both careers, economics and physics, but this delusion didn’t last long.) Dad never asked me or pushed to follow one path or the other, he wanted me to do whatever I wanted to; I’m sure he was happy when I finally told him I wanted to be an economist too in one of our summer morning walks in the beach. I just couldn’t take my mind out of it, and I still can’t. To paraphrase his friend Peter Boettke, dad lived and transpire economics. During my remaining years at high school I read everything I could from his bookshelf. As you can imagine, a lot of Hazzlit, Hayek, Mises, Friedman, etc,. But mostly, I’ve read and re-read, and then re-read, everything he wrote. For me he was THE economist and I wanted to be able to think as clearly as he did. Even today I feel I’m influence by his way of thinking when I write an op/ed or work research papers.

As I said, I was always curious why an economic argument that deals with living things instead of empirical regularity can be so strong. That “apriori thing” my dad would talk about led me in my last year in high school to work on “rewriting” my own way (to the best I could do as a young high school student) Popper’s Conjectures and Refutations. This put me in contact with Mario Silar and opened a still healthy appetite for epistemological problems of economics. This epistemological appetite led to me work with one my dad’s closest friends, who I now also consider a good close friend, Gabriel Zanotti. Gabriel was my masters advisor at ESEADE, where dad spent so many years teaching economics and principles of classical liberalism. Recently Gabriel and I wrote a paper together on the implications of Machlup’s reading of Mises’ epistemology (as wonkish as it gets!) I consider this, now in Journal of the History of Economic Thought, as one of the my best papers so far.

As I was about to finish high school, in one of his so many international trips he had a connection in New York, he went all the way to FEE to buy a copy of Human Action which gave me as an end of high-school gift. I read it of the first time that summer before starting college. While I had an intuition and general understanding of the apriori in economics, this was the first time I’ve read about praxeology by Mises and I don’t know I could have gone through those pages without working before hand on Popper, which wouldn’t have occurred with the impact the machine-unemployment napkin-long argument left in my head. I say the first time because I was so well impressed by Human Action that I read it every summer even after finishing my college degree. I’ve read this book only six times. I say only because after I asked dad, he told me that he thought he had read it around 9 times (but who’s counting, right?). It seems I still have some catch-up to do… Needless to say, this is my most cherished piece in my bookshelf. There’s a joke I’ve heard but can’t remember from who: “An Austrian doesn’t lend even to his best friend neither his guitar, his girlfriend, nor his Human Action.” I don’t have a guitar, I play the piano. I’m single (who knows, hopefully not for long). But sure as hell I’m not lending my copy of Human Action.

This personal detour is no accidental. All these reading and interaction with my dad led me to start my economics career, also at the Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina, as an Austrian economist first (Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Kirzner), and only then as a trained mainstrem economist. For better and for worse, this has always affected how I think about economic problems, what questions to ask, and how to answer them.

There are four papers from dad that merit, I think, special mention. All of them published in Libertas. This journal was discontinued a few years ago and he was still trying to bring it back to life the same day he left this world. The last email I received by him was addressed to a “club of academic libertarians” discussing the feasibility of using Libertas as the title of a new journal:

1-. Mathematical Economics vs Economic Science I & II

The title is no accidental. This paper is the outcome of his doctoral dissertation under the direction of Hans Sennholz (himself a doctoral student of Mises). I still know of no answers to some of the arguments he puts forward in this work. I also don’t know of an English written text that rise similar arguments to his. Hopefully I’ll find the time to continue this line of work at some point in my career. The doctoral committee, I should add, was composed of mathematicians as well. When dad defended his dissertation I was only one, or maybe two, years old and stayed at home with mom. The defense took place in Grove City. Pete Boettke can share colorful recollection of the defense as he was himself there and was the first doctoral dissertation he observed. I’ve heard his colorful recollection before, it’s worth listening to.

2-. Theories of Value and Price I & II

The best reference I know about history of thought in what respects to theories of value and price. It is because of these papers that every time I hear anyone say “labor theory of value” I feel the urge to scream. Classic economists, from Smith to J. S. Mill did not have a labor theory of value, they had a cost-theory of price. The cost part is not even just labor and, of course, price is not value. For the classics, value was subjective, they just didn’t have a theory about it and that’s why they were immerse in their circular reasoning (which they knew about). If you don’t believe me, be a scholar and read the classics first hand yourself. Or read his papers on this subject. I also learned about marginal theory of value from these papers, and is because of these papers that every time I teach with a textbook that uses the famous food or water example to explain marginal theory I can’t resist the need to explain why such examples are actually wrong (yes, most economic textbook get marginal theory of value inaccurately, no surprise about dad’s skepticism on mathematical economics). I can’t deal with the idea of a student of mine that does nor properly understand what marginal theory is about (the value of similar good satisfying different needs, not different goods satisfying the same need: number of glasses of water to satisfy a unique need, being thirsty).

3-. The Great Depression

Also my first reference for the Great Depression. If there were an English version of this paper it would certainly be an assigned reading in my macro courses. I’ve learned many things from this paper. One lesson I always remember is that there is no such thing as fixing the price of gold or an international system of fixed exchange rates under gold standard. This explanation is flavored with his unique and self-reliant irony. If it weren’t for this paper I would had a very hard time understanding some of the monetary literature like Larry White’s and George Selgin’s free banking, which was my first research topic when I first started to write academic papers. It was my good friend Adrian Ravier who first pushed me into this topics, but was dad who got me ready to deal with them.

4-. Value Based Management

This is one of his latest papers (1999), also one that seems to have gone somewhat unnoticed. In this paper he applies finance to economic analysis; think of micro vs finance and macro vs finance, not of financial economics. Being his son I couldn’t resist everything he wrote and I read this peace just as I did with all others. This paper left a seed in my head for many years: apply finance to economics (not economics to finance). If economics wants to deal with real world problems, the assumptions have to simplify the real world without changing the problem to be solved in the process (Hayek’s points in The Use of Knowledge in Society). Conventional micro simplifies but also modifies the problem to be solved. Finance, however, is how entrepreneurs actually make decisions. During a discussion about the rational expectations critique to ABCT with Pete Leeson as he was visiting Suffolk University, where I was a doctoral student working with Ben Powell, this paper came to my head and I used its line of reasoning to answer Leeson’s criticism of ABCT. Soon after (a few days actually) I wrote a rebuttal to the RE critique using a EVA(R) as the financial framework [now in The Review of Austrian Economics]. It was this paper that also put me in contact for the first time with Anthony Evans in the U.K., with whom I interact with from time to time. In this paper I cite dad as the only work I know doing a similar application to mine (well, it was his application actually). Now this finance application to capital theory is my largest research project, one I’m still working along with Peter Lewin in a set of so far 7 papers. At the moment of reading his paper, in 1999, I couldn’t phantom that this would become, so far from home, a research project more than 10 years later. I’m only sorry that he didn’t live long enough to see how far this project is going [Spoiler for Peter Lewin: The seed has transformed into a book structure in my head I still need to discuss with him]. In some sense, I can’t help feeling I’m carrying out what was his original idea. I wish he would have had more time to read my papers with Pete to give us his comments.

I wasn’t, of course, a typical student of him. I wasn’t also his typical colleague. I only worked briefly at his firm, CMT Group, after quitting Reuters and before moving to the U.S. to become one of Ben Powell students. But his passion for economics and teaching was as alive as ever up to the very end.

The eternal optimist, always with a smile ready for everyone. Professor in numerous universities in Argentina, and many countries in Latin America. He leaves students and friendly colleagues all around the world. Humble to the limit.

He died too young and with plenty of energy that will go unused, but I know we’ll share again our morning walks in the after life and I’ll tell him what I did since that first napkin when I was only 14 years old.

Foto - 10


Nicolás Cachanosky es Doctor en Economía, (Suffolk University), Lic. en Economía, (UCA), Master en Economía y Ciencias Políticas, (ESEADE). Fué profesor de Finanzas Públicas en UCA y es Assistant Professor of Economics en Metropolitan State University of Denver.