It was asserted to me that "most Austrians" favor an "axiomatic construction" of how an economic actor "SHOULD" act. Also that "their models fail to predict human behavior" and "[to them] empirical observation doesn't matter because economic actors SHOULD really behave how Austrians say", citing "Behavioral Economics." Also that Austrians view people as rational utility maximizers.
Which austrians can be said to try to predict behavior and fail to predict stuff like what is discussed in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictably_Irrational - I don't think anything listed here can really be called irrational in that it is people acting on felt uneasiness - I think that the fact that people can judge poorly or that mental shortcuts can be gamed does not refute Praxeology.
Thank you :)
That makes a lot of no sense.
"Austrian Models" - you mean Bruno?
That man acts with purpose is still 'just' a theory, and as far as I know there's nothing more particular about it by which it could be 'disproven' or shown to be unrealistic. Even in cases of 'animal spirits' running amuck, the action axiom still holds.
HHH
</thread>
Clayton -
I don't find most praxeological arguments especially convincing, so he might be onto something.
That was my contention - that none of the things in Predictably Irrational are in conflict with felt uneasiness, means, and ends. And that Austrianism does not assert that people are rational utility maximizers in any sense that holds utility to be more than just a floating, changing abstraction. I was wondering if anyone knows of any such models by which Austrians describe how people "SHOULD" act.. I know of none. In my current thinking, Austrianism *is* Behavioralist.