4 ms·

Your interpretation of my statement isn't accurate. Austrian theory's lack of mathematical formalization is what makes it unfalsifiable. It's not your water e

Your interpretation of my statement isn't accurate. Austrian theory's lack of mathematical formalization is what makes it unfalsifiable. It's not your water example; if it were, then you would be correct. Again, it is easy and often valid to criticize the methodologies associated with mainstream econ, but the question is whether one can offer a demonstrably superior alternative. You have not done that here.

roenxi 7y ago
> but the question is whether one can offer a demonstrably superior alternative That isn't the only question. There is also a question "is there something here that we can model?". There is no requirement to provide a better model if the existing model is inaccurate enough. I've never actually seen an economic model that uses maths beyond accounting balances or basic calculus/timeseries so I'm certainly not qualified to critique them - whatever they are. But the Austrain critiques seem to be something like that if you blow a credit bubble then manipulating accounting identities isn't enough to avoid having to pay back the credit at some point and taking an economic fall where the credit gave you a boost. That is a falsifiable position. The Americans and others are running a big experiment that has so far provided potentially falsifying evidence. They can still be proven wrong even though they havn't published an equation, so their theories are obviously falsifiable.
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  >There is no requirement to provide a better model if the existing model is inaccurate enough. We disagree here. I think this notion is what allows people to arbitrarily dismiss theories that they personally don't like.