> No. People who like the theory saw real world events that kind of sort of looks like ABCT could explain them, and then made a post facto observation. Like Ma

> No. People who like the theory saw real world events that kind of sort of looks like ABCT could explain them, and then made a post facto observation. Like Mark Spitznagel, who took a billion dollar derivatives position on the 2008 stock market crash! >Unless Mises et al. made some sort of prediction based upon at the time non-existent financial instruments, ABCT did not predict the 2008 sub-prime financial collapse. Period. Here's an article from the Mises Institute on the subject. Period. http://mises.org/daily/4072 http://mises.org/daily/4072 > "Oh yes, if only the world met all of our Axioms. Then everything would be grand!" said every failed political economic project ever. Politicians must come up with excuses of some sort. > And as it turns out, lots of times those people are working in government funded research labs and universities, or applying research funded in those labs and universities. And those resources may be more effective in an alternate configuration. > You see, it's just that we've lost our list Axioms and now our only reference point is reality... perhaps you could lend us your map to drill on? My map (in reference to the Alfred Korzybski quote 'the map is not the territory') consists of any economic school, or any other information I happen across. Empirical is fine with me. But it depends on the circle I'm talking to. If one was to mention vanilla observation to a group interested in medicine, then there'd be a combination of recoil and disgust (in most cases), for example. But in this case, Praxeology suits me fine!