[churchill]

Really? Classical liberal economics fails to explain business cycles? Then why is the Austrian School (dyed in the wool classical liberals) the only major economic faction that's developed the most comprehensive expose on how central banks cause malinvestment, booms and busts by fiddling with the money supply?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory

[asymmetric]

As far as I understand, Austrians are precisely not classical liberals, but neoliberals.

Cf. for example Hayek’s critique of the classical liberal notion of the perfectly informed, rational market actor.

[kriro]

I don't think most Austrian econmists would self-identify as neoliberals. Politically they tend to be Libertarians (in the U.S.) or free market anarchists or minarchists (or I suppose laissez faire). Basically free-market instead of stat interventions. I belive most neoliberals quite readily accept state interventions, central banking etc.

The core tenent is that the free market is the best allocator of factors of production and entrepreneurial profit is the guiding factor. The state tends to interfere with this. It's best summarized in the socialist calculation debate.

However, there's also basically a split (mostly reconciled these days) betwen a more Hayekian wing which is more accepting of the mainstream (and could possibly self-identify as neoliberals) and the state in general and a wing that is more in the spirit of von Mises.

Disclaimer: just interested in the history of economics, not an economist.

[churchill]

You're a bit mistaken. Austrians are basically anti-statists who believe in limited government and non-intervention in the market - even to the point of opposing legal tender laws.