129 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 7 Feb \ parent \ on: Is Studying Economic Data "Doing Economics"? econ
Not in the Austrian tradition. This is a fundamental point they make about how economics differs from the natural sciences. Instead, economic theory is inherently axiomatic and follows deductively from those premises. In that way, economics is more like mathematics (or is a branch of mathematics) than what people generally refer to as "science". (Although, both econ and math are sciences.)
I appreciate the Austrian perspective greatly, but I confess that I am not well schooled in their thinking. How do Austrians handle situations in which a quantitative measurement is needed to make a prediction, like a demand or a supply elasticity? Do they not consider that part of economics proper, like how engineering is considered separate from physics?
reply
like a demand or a supply elasticity
This is actually my main gripe with the way they talk. Estimating elasticities is absolutely part of economics proper and they acknowledge that. It's easy to miss that, though, when reading pieces like this, even though the author never actually says anything to the contrary.
like how engineering is considered separate from physics?
There are a couple of interesting parallels to that.
- Finance, even if rooted in Austrian theory, is usually considered a separate discipline from economics.
- While still being considered part of economics, Austrians have an interesting perspective that empirical work is best understood as doing economic history.
reply
Today I learnt! Haha
reply
The Austrians preceded the behavioral economists!
reply