You certainly do need to be able to forecast weather to justify building a roof to shield yourself from rain! As opposed to blizzards, the monsoon season, sand storms, or any of the infinite varieties of weather which do or do not exist in your particular location.
I also don’t get what you call “normal workings” of the economy.
The normal workings are set by long tradition and experience and local experiments (see the Austrians like Hayek), which is data-driven stuff completely opposed to the top-down economic interventions I contrasted with.
My understanding of Austrian Economics is that it’s founded on Praxeology, which must be read very generously not to conflict with the findings of neuroeconomics, prospect theory, and heuristics and biases in general. Google “austrian economics,” and one of the first results is a long, detailed critique by Robin Hanson’s lunch buddy Bryan Caplan (quoted above).
Given that, I’m not sure it’s unambiguous to use the term “normal workings” to describe Austrian Economic theory, except in a non-normal sense.
You certainly do need to be able to forecast weather to justify building a roof to shield yourself from rain! As opposed to blizzards, the monsoon season, sand storms, or any of the infinite varieties of weather which do or do not exist in your particular location.
The normal workings are set by long tradition and experience and local experiments (see the Austrians like Hayek), which is data-driven stuff completely opposed to the top-down economic interventions I contrasted with.
My understanding of Austrian Economics is that it’s founded on Praxeology, which must be read very generously not to conflict with the findings of neuroeconomics, prospect theory, and heuristics and biases in general. Google “austrian economics,” and one of the first results is a long, detailed critique by Robin Hanson’s lunch buddy Bryan Caplan (quoted above).
Given that, I’m not sure it’s unambiguous to use the term “normal workings” to describe Austrian Economic theory, except in a non-normal sense.
Bryan’s critique.