Good article, but a bit too long for me to participate into discussion. Will read the rest of it later. This debate between neoclassicals and austrians reminds

Good article, but a bit too long for me to participate into discussion. Will read the rest of it later. This debate between neoclassicals and austrians reminds me of logicians and people from static typing systems endlessly arguing about which logic or type system is the best and complete, without flaws, inconsistencies and paradoxes. They are trying to reconstruct the world from axioms but get stuck at the very bottom in these petty debates. In the meantime we have people which just whip out Python or other dynamic language, accept its flaws, but produce some real working software which powers the world. Similarly in logic, people just infer generalizations from examples (inductive reasoning) instead trying to build axiomatic truth so that they can reason deductively. My 'real world' comments to that economic debate. 1. subjectivity. Humans share 99% of DNA not only among themselves but also with pigs. It's evident that some people have subjective preferences, but vast majority of human needs are similar. Housing and food are obviously the largest markets out there 2. welfare, ie. connecting micro to macro When you observe microparticles of gas (motion, collisions, velocity) you don't get macro (temperature, pressure, density) values until you put the gas into a container, ie. introduce a boundary condition. Similarly for economics, you can observe individual collisions (transactions) but unless you observe what happens at the boundary (scarcity of certain goods) you won't make it to macro values (wealth distribution, poverty) 3. monopoly. You get monopoly when you constrain supply of certain good in the economy. This can happen artificially (pharma industry preventing other companies from entering the market because of inexperience and safety). Or naturally (network effects - all utility (electricity, gas, water, railroad, internet providers, law and justice) companies eventually merging into one). Because of natural monopolies you need a government, but only for those. The last point about monopolies is the georgist (Henry George) critique of both neoclassicals and austrians. The monopolies are the cause of poverty and unequal wealth distribution, because in the money eventually ends up in the black holes (monopolies) and rarely make it out. The biggest market of all - housing - is a perfect example. All the money ends up parked in real estate. George back then proposed a remedy. To price 'private property' as a service. The private property owners are those consuming the government services. Eg. Houses require guarding by firefighters, police against squatters and court system to resolve disputes. These services should be financed from taxes based on property then. But nowadays they are financed from taxes on labor (income tax) and consumption (vat, sales taxes). In other words those people that don't own anything pay for the services of those that do own. It's likely no conspiracy, it's just one of those cases where people measure the thing which is easier to measure, not the one which is important to measure.