We have quirks. Fuzzy concepts
that we can feel intuitively, and know are important, yet are hard to
pin down. They're pervasive, everywhere, and therefore difficult to
explore with rigour, although it can be done.
But these quirks -
alertness, uncertainty, tacit knowledge, spontaneous order,
subjectivism, individualism, dynamic time, &tc, are often misused.
Too often we absorb these quirks naturally, and recline in our armchairs believing that they automatically invalidate the theories and research of our rivals. We kid ourselves that these quirks destroy the neoclassical ediface, and all we need to do is keep pointing them out, ever vocal.
Criticize by Creating
We
must embrace these quirks, and never deny them. But also nurture,
sustain, explore and build upon them. It is our responsibility to use
these quirks to answer questions more successfully than our
counterparts, and to create added value for the science of economics.
If our conclusion is that policy is foolish, fine. But if it's that
analysis is futile then we're at
fault. Good work will always be recognised.
Studying the great Catallaxy
The
biggest error of modern economics has been to let the methodology
constrain the object of study. Exchange, the institutions that
facilitate it, and the spontaneous order this creates, are often
overlooked in favour of aggregate data that lend themselves to
qualitative analysis. Austrians are no better, since their mistaken
anti-empiricism similarly prevents analysis, and fosters a
self-referential study of themselves, and their predecessors.
Austrian economics should be an attitutude, and a toolkit, but not (necessarily) the subject matter.
Peter Boetkke asks What Should 'Austrian' Economists Do?
Recent Comments