John Maynard Keynes and Ludwig Von Mises on Probability
Ludwig M. P. Van den Hauwe
affiliation not provided to SSRN
May 13, 2010
Procesos De Mercado Revista Europea de Economía Política, Vol. V, No. 1, pp. 11-50, 2008
The economic paradigms of Ludwig von Mises on the one hand and of John Maynard Keynes on the other have been correctly recognized as antithetical at the theoretical level, and as antagonistic with respect to their practical and public policy implications. Characteristically they have also been vindicated by opposing sides of the political spectrum. Nevertheless the respective views of these authors with respect to the meaning and interpretation of probability exhibit a closer conceptual affinity than has been acknowledged in the literature. In particular it is argued that in some relevant respects Ludwig von Mises´ interpretation of the concept of probability exhibits a closer affinity with the interpretation of probability developed by his opponent John Maynard Keynes than with the views on probability espoused by his brother Richard von Mises. Nevertheless there also exist certain differences between the views of Ludwig von Mises and those of John Maynard Keynes with respect to probability. One of these is highlighted more particularly: where John Maynard Keynes advocated a monist view of probability, Ludwig von Mises embraced a dualist view of probability, according to which the concept of probability has two different meanings each of which is valid in a particular area or context. It is concluded that both John Maynard Keynes and Ludwig von Mises presented highly nuanced views with respect to the meaning and interpretation of probability.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 45
Keywords: General Methodology, Austrian Methodology, Keynesian Methodology, Quantitative and Qualitative Probability Concepts, Meaning and Interpretation, Frequency Interpretation, Logical Interpretation, John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig von Mises, Richard von Mises
JEL Classification: B00, B40, B49, B53, C00Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 13, 2010 ; Last revised: October 10, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.750 seconds