[1. Arrow, K.J. 1950. “A difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare”. Journal of Political Economy, 58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.1086/256963]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Barnett II, W. 1989. “Subjective Cost Revisited,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 137-138.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Barnett, W. II. 2003. “The Modern Theory of Consumer Behavior: Ordinal or Cardinal?” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. 6 (1): 41 − 65; http://www.qjae.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_1_3.pdf.10.1007/s12113-003-1012-4]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Barnett, W. II and Block W. 2008. “Singularism: Human Action is Binary.” Research in the History of Economic Thought & Methodology. Vol. 26-A, pp. 15-30.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Barnett, W. II and Block W. Unpublished. “Thymology, praxeology, demand curves, Giffen goods, diminishing marginal utility and indifference”.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Baumol, W. 1958. “The cardinal utility that is ordinal.” Economic Journal10.2307/2227278]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Block, W. 1988. “Comment on Leland Yeager on Subjectivism,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. II, pp 199-208; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/r2_12.pdf.10.1007/BF01539307]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Block, W. 1999. “Austrian Theorizing, Recalling the Foundations: Reply to Caplan,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, No. 4, winter, pp. 21-39; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_2.pdf; errata: http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_9.pdf.10.1007/s12113-999-1029-4]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Block, W. 2003. “Realism: Austrian vs. Neoclassical Economics, Reply to Caplan,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall, pp. 63-76; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_4.pdf.10.1007/s12113-003-1024-0]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Block, W. 2005. “Rejoinder to Caplan on Bayesian Economics,” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 19, No. 1, Winter, pp. 79-95; http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003654.asp.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Block, W. 2007. “Reply to Caplan on Austrian Economic Methodology,” Corporate Ownership & Control, Vol. 4, No. 2, November, pp. 312-zz. http://www.virtusinterpress.org/additional_files/journ_coc/issues/COC_(Volume_4_Issue_3_Sp ring_2007_Continued2).pdf.10.22495/cocv4i3c2p8]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Block, W. and Barnett II W. 2012. “Transitivity and the money pump.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics vol. 15, no. 2. Summer, pp. 237-251; http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae15_2_5.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Buchanan, J. M. and Thirlby G.F. 1981. L.S.E. Essays on Cost, New York: New York University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Buchanan, J. M. 1969. Cost and Choice: An Inquiry into Economic Theory, Chicago: Markham.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Buchanan, J. M. 1979. “The General Implications of Subjectivism in Economics,” in What Should Economists Do?, Indianapolis: Liberty Press]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Butos, W. and Koppl R. 1997. “The varieties of subjectivism: Keynes, Hayek on expectations.” History of Political Economy, 29 (2), pp. 327-59.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Caplan, B.. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations,” Southern Economic Journal, April, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 823-838.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Caplan, B., 2000. “Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Hulsmann and Block,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer, pp. 69-86; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_2_6.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Caplan, B.. 2001. “Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Huelsmann and Block,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 2, No. 4, summer, pp. 69-86; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_2_6.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Caplan, B. 2003. “Probability and the Synthetic A Priori: A Reply to Block.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall, pp. 77-83; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_5.pdf.10.1007/s12113-003-1025-z]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Caplan, B. 2008. “The Trojan Horse Example” June 16; http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/the_trojan_hors.html.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Callahan, G. 2003. “Choice and Preference,” February 10; http://mises.org/story/1163.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Carilli, A. M. and Dempster, G. M. 2003. “A note on the treatment of uncertainty in economics and finance,” Journal of Education for Business 79.2 Nov. 1, pp. 99-103.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Cordato, R. E. 1989. “Subjective Value, Time Passage, and the Economics of Harmful Effects,” Hamline Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Spring, pp.229-244.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. DiLorenzo, T. J. 1990. “The Subjectivist Roots of James Buchanan's Economics,” The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 180-195.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Ekelund, R. B., Jr., and Tollison R.D. 1991. Economics. 3rd. HarperCollins Publishers; p. 148-150.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Garrison, R. 1985. “A Subjectivist Theory of a Capital Using Economy,” in O'Driscoll, Gerald P. and Rizzo, Mario, The Economics of Time and Ignorance, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Gordon, D. 1993. Book review of Welfare Economics and Externalities in an Open-Ended Universe: A Modern Austrian Perspective by Roy E. Cordato. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992; The Review of Austrian Economics Vol. 6, No. 2: 99-112; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE6_2_4.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Gunning, J. P. 1990. The New Subjectivist Revolution: An Elucidation and Extension of Ludwig von Mises's Contribution to Economic Theory, Savage, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Hayek, F. A. 1979. The Counter-Revolution of Science, 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: LibertyPress]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Hicks, J. R. 1946 [1939]. Value and Capital: An Inquiry into Some Fundamental Principles of Economic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, second ed.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Hoppe, H.H. 2005. “Must Austrians Embrace Indifference?,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter, pp. 87-91; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae8_4_6.pdf.10.1007/s12113-005-1005-6]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Hoppe, H.H. 2007. “The limits of numerical probability: Frank H. Knight and Ludwig von Mises and the frequency interpretation.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, spring: 3-21; http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae10_1_1.pdf.10.1007/s12113-007-9005-3]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Hülsmann, J. G. 1999. “Economic Science and Neoclassicism.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2 Num. 4, pp. 1-20; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_1.pdf.10.1007/s12113-999-1028-5]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Jevons,W.S. 1911 [1871]. The Theory of Political Economy. London: Macmillan and Co. Journal of Happiness Studies; http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/quality+of+life+research/journal/10902.]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Jung, C. G. 1971 [1921]. Psychological Types. Bollingen Series XX, volume 6, Princeton University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Kirzner, I. M. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Kirzner, I., ed. 1986. Subjectivism, Intelligibility and Economic Understanding, New York: New York University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-08764-8]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Lange, O., R. 1934. “The Determinateness of the Utility Function”. Review of Economic Studies. June 1934 pp. 218-25. “A note on the Determinateness of the Utility Function”. Review of Economic Studies. February 1935 pp. 155-8. “Notes on the Determinateness of the Utility Function”. By Phelps Brown, Bernadelli and Lange. Review of Economic Studies. October 1937 pp. 66-77.]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Machaj, M.. 2007. “A Praxeological Case for Homogeneity and Indifference.” New Perspectives on Political Economy, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 231 - 238; http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/3_2/nppe3_2_5.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Menger, C. 1950[1871]. Principles of Economics. Editors and translators, James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Mises, L. von. [1949] 1998. Human Action, Scholars’ Edition. Auburn: Mises Institute.]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Murphy, R. P. 2008. “Austrian Realists.” July 17; http://mises.org/story/3028.]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Murphy, R. P., Robert Wutscher and Walter E. Block. 2010. “Mathematics in Economics: An Austrian Methodological Critique.” Philosophical Investigations, January, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 44-66; http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123209256/PDFSTART; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9205.2009.01397.x/full.10.1111/j.1467-9205.2009.01397.x]Search in Google Scholar
[45. von Neumann, J and Morgenstern, O. 1944. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Pigou, A. C. 1932. The Economics of Welfare .4th ed., London: Macmillan.]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Rizzo, M. J. 1979. “Uncertainty, Subjectivity, and the Economic Analysis of Law”, in Mario J. Rizzo (ed.), Time, Uncertainty, and Disequilibrium, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 71-90.]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Rizzo, M. J. 1980. “The Mirage of Efficiency,” Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 641-658.]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Ross, D. 1999. What People Want: The concept of Utility from Bentham to Game Theory. University of Cape Town Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Rothbard, M. N. 1979. “Comment: The Myth of Efficiency,” in Mario J. Rizzo (ed.), Time, Uncertainty, and Disequilibrium, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books: pp. 91-96.]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Rothbard, M. N. 1993. Man, Economy, and State, 2 vols., Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Rothbard, M. N. 1997. “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,” in The Logic of Action: Method, Money and the Austrian School, Vol. I, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 211-254. ]Search in Google Scholar
[53. Samuelson, P. 1938. “The Numerical Representation of Ordered Classifications and the Concept of Utility”. The Review of Economic Studies, 1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.10.2307/2967540]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Stigler, G. J. 1950. “The Development of Utility Theory,” Journal of Political Economy; Vol. 58, No. 5, October, pp. 373-396.]Search in Google Scholar
[55. Stringham, E. 2001. “Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency and the Problem of Central Planning,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer) 41-50; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_2_3.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[56. Stringham, E. 2008. “Economic Value and Cost Are Subjective,” in The Handbook of Austrian Economics, Peter Boettke (editor), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; http://mises.org/journals/scholar/stringham4.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[57. Stringham, E., and White, Mark. 2004. “Economic Analysis of Tort Law: Austrian and Kantian Perspectives,” in Law and Economics: Alternative Economic Approaches to Legal and Regulatory Issues, Margaret Oppenheimer and Nicholas Mercuro (editors) New York: M.E. Sharpe, 374-92. http://www.sjsu.edu/stringham/docs/Stringham.and.White2005.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Walras, L. 1954 [1874]. Elements of Pure Economics: Or the theory of social wealth. 1954 translation of 1926 edition. Homewood Ill: Richard Irwin. ]Search in Google Scholar
