3 ms·

>That and other elements of rational choice theory are not unfalsifiable. >Of course, some of economics (e.g., the Austrian school) is overtly driven by a norm

>That and other elements of rational choice theory are not unfalsifiable. >Of course, some of economics (e.g., the Austrian school) is overtly driven by a normative ideological agenda rather than pursuing descriptive, empirical science. This is actually one reason the Austrian school criticises the neoclassical school. The neoclassical school is just as much founded on ideological assumptions as the Austrian school (main difference is cardinal vs ordinal utility), as it's impossible to have a "theory of value" without some underlying philosophical notion of value. However the neoclassical school hides this value system under so many layers of maths in an attempt to convince people it's a real, objective science like physics or chemistry. There is a form of economics that makes testable predictions with a reasonably high degree of accuracy, and isn't based on any underlying ideology: it's called "quantitative finance".

dragonwriter 5y ago
> as it's impossible to have a "theory of value" without some underlying philosophical notion of value. But mainstream empirical economics, including (but not limited to) the neoclassical school, does not have a theory of value. It makes predictions based on hypotheses of how individuals act given the existence of individual subjective value systems. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made, but this is just projection by the Austrian school. You can layer an infinite number of possible idealized value systems on top of any mainstream economic theory to get a policy theory (and there's almost as many of those that have been layered on it as people making policy recommendations incorporating mainstream economic analysis, but that is a separate layer. > There is a form of economics that makes testable predictions with a reasonably high degree of accuracy, and isn't based on any underlying ideology: it's called "quantitative finance". QF is to economics as meteorology is to climatology.
- logicchains 5y ago
  >But mainstream empirical economics, including (but not limited to) the neoclassical school, does not have a theory of value. It does; it assumes utility exists as some concrete thing that can be compared between individuals. The fact you weren't aware of that just shows how good mainstream economics is at hiding this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility#Discussion_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility#Discussion_and_critici...

dragonwriter 5y ago

> as it's impossible to have a "theory of value" without some underlying philosophical notion of value. But mainstream empirical economics, including (but not limited to) the neoclassical school, does not have a theory of value. It makes predictions based on hypotheses of how individuals act given the existence of individual subjective value systems. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made, but this is just projection by the Austrian school. You can layer an infinite number of possible idealized value systems on top of any mainstream economic theory to get a policy theory (and there's almost as many of those that have been layered on it as people making policy recommendations incorporating mainstream economic analysis, but that is a separate layer. > There is a form of economics that makes testable predictions with a reasonably high degree of accuracy, and isn't based on any underlying ideology: it's called "quantitative finance". QF is to economics as meteorology is to climatology.

logicchains 5y ago
>But mainstream empirical economics, including (but not limited to) the neoclassical school, does not have a theory of value. It does; it assumes utility exists as some concrete thing that can be compared between individuals. The fact you weren't aware of that just shows how good mainstream economics is at hiding this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility#Discussion_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility#Discussion_and_critici...