Talk:Interest

Note for possible future edit: there is a contention between Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and Murphy regarding the origin of interest. Smith (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2014 (EST)
 * Some editing notes for the future here, and links to add to the discussion here:
 * Hulsmann link: QJAE Vol. 5, No. 4 (Winter 2002), A Theory of Interest. (still have to read through this)
 * Herbener lecture might be good to add to the links at the end: Time Preference Theory of Interest and Its Enemies by the LvM Institute.
 * Bohm-Bawerkian links: Capital and Interest by Robert Murphy, also might be wise to include Recent Literature on Interest (in the history section, perhaps?  It might be best to include Marx's exploitation theory in there with a link to ) and A Positive Theory of Capital in here somewhere...speaking of which, the relevant block-quote that separates his train of thought from Mises' is the following (tl;dr, interest is imputed from the depreciation in factors of production):
 * WE have traced all kinds and methods of acquiring interest to one identical source—the increasing value of future goods as they ripen into present goods.
 * Robert Murphy's links: Pattern Coordination and the Theory of Interest by Robert Murphy, which regards  (tl;dr version: interest is a price on money (directly contradicting one of the sections here)
 * I'm thinking to take the current sections other than "History", and label these as "Misesian Interest Theory", and then do another "Debates in the Austrian School" section with subsections regarding Murphy/Hulsmann/Bohm-Bawerks' opinions.
 * Smith (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2014 (EST)

Interest is not a price
I should just admit that I'm not sure how to proceed with the existence of this section. A lot of the links I brought up above--especially Robert Murphy's--directly attack this. Smith (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2015 (EST)


 * Have a 'Views on interest as a price' section or something like that. We can certainly accommodate both views! :) And if it's something that most Austrian economists changed their view at, that can be included, too. Pestergaines (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (EST)


 * Alright, cool. Hopefully something like this works.  FWIW, a future editor might want to include Menger and Fetter into the history section somehow...  Smith (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2015 (EST)


 * I'm coming back to this, and...I don't know, but when you get people like Herbener saying directly in his introduction "Interest, being a price," then I'm not sure that is what Mises meant in the cited section. I think when he says "Originary interest is not 'the price paid for the services of capital,'" what he means is that interest as it occurs in the ERE is the price that is also determined by the time preference of individuals in the marketplace and not just the price to cover the productivity of capital.  Thus, it is more of an allusion to Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of the naive productivity theory of interest.  It is still a price, just not a price solely regarding the productivity of capital.  Smith (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2016 (EDT)


 * ...I think just simply editing the title covered this. Smith (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2016 (EDT)


 * Given all those opinions, I think the 'controversy' should be just spelled out - some Austrians consider interest to be a price (Mises, Herbener, etc.), others don't (Murphy, etc.). Make a top-level section "Is interest a price?" and add pro- and contra-subsections. Quote what they say and link to their respective books/articles. Pestergaines (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

Notes for Future Work
The "Interest And Land" as well as "Interest is not the productivity of capital" sections feel like they are vestigial components that should instead be incorporated as part of the criticism of the "Productivity Theory of Interest" section. Smith (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, is Schumpeter's theory in some part saying that originary interest is due to uncertainty? Smith (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)