3 ms·

I'm a big fan of Austrians (I'm a complete Hayek groupie). But I don't think this is quite correct. It seems to me that Austrians really do stay away from mathe

I'm a big fan of Austrians (I'm a complete Hayek groupie). But I don't think this is quite correct. It seems to me that Austrians really do stay away from mathematical models, at least. But they do have very strong logical models. The praxeology you refer to is really rooted in inductive logical reasoning. The difficulty is that these logical arguments depend on the rationality of the actors in the economy. And while Mises acknowledges that the real reasons for a person's actions may not even be known to one's self, more recent experimentation seems to show that at least in some situations, people really do not behave rationally. Anyway, if you're concerned about a lack of mathematical rigor, but are interested in Austrian ideas, you should look at the Chicago school, with luminaries such as Milton Friedman. The Chicagoans started from Austrian roots, but if anything, their attitude toward mathematical models is the opposite of the Austrians: they virtually invented much of the mathematical techniques that are employed by modern economists.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I think we disagree only on definitions. I'm treating Chicago as a subset (the majority, from what I've seen) of Austrians, you seem to be treating them as a separate group. I'm also not sure what you mean when you distinguish logical from mathematical models. Could you explain?
- Perceval 16y ago
  Chicago and Austrian schools are separate groups, despite both being on the side of less government intervention. They have different philosophical/methodological roots, and have different histories of their interaction with government.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I stand corrected.
    - lzw 16y ago
      I think monetary policy is the primary axis upon which these two schools are separated. Chicago is under sway Keynes when it comets minatory policy-- but note this is not the same as keynsianism which is a modern political theory that ignores the repercussions of easement that Keynes warned about. Austrians are pretty much hard money. There are some interesting comments made by rothbards and Friedman about each other ot illustrate the split. The schools reach similar conclusions on a number of issues, though. You already accepted they are separate, I'm just trying to add flavor here, not win a point.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I think we disagree only on definitions. I'm treating Chicago as a subset (the majority, from what I've seen) of Austrians, you seem to be treating them as a separate group. I'm also not sure what you mean when you distinguish logical from mathematical models. Could you explain?

Perceval 16y ago
Chicago and Austrian schools are separate groups, despite both being on the side of less government intervention. They have different philosophical/methodological roots, and have different histories of their interaction with government.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I stand corrected.
  - lzw 16y ago
    I think monetary policy is the primary axis upon which these two schools are separated. Chicago is under sway Keynes when it comets minatory policy-- but note this is not the same as keynsianism which is a modern political theory that ignores the repercussions of easement that Keynes warned about. Austrians are pretty much hard money. There are some interesting comments made by rothbards and Friedman about each other ot illustrate the split. The schools reach similar conclusions on a number of issues, though. You already accepted they are separate, I'm just trying to add flavor here, not win a point.