According to the Austrians, economic theories cannot be proved or disproved based on empirical evidence but rather through deduction based on irrefutable axioms. So my question to you, as humans utilizing the little time we have on this world to strive for truth, is what sort of empirical evidence would it take for you to question the truth of some of most defining theories of the Austrians? What would it take to be convinced that, even if you don't have the cognitive capacity to identify where the deductive error in the Austrians' logic occurs, they've gotten it wrong in some fundamentally refuting manner throughout the years? What would it take to convince you, even if it is unlikely/impossible for the existence of a state not to grow and grow into the behemoths we see today, that a little bit of state is better than none at all?
It seems to me that the only field of study in my life that operates independent of any sort of proving or disproving empirical evidence is that of Austrian economics. I understand the arguments for why this might be the case, but when we take into account that somewhere along the way our logic could simply be wrong (even if we don't know where the error is occurring), I don't think it is illegitimate to take into consideration the empirical evidence in favor of or contrary to our economic theories to decide whether or not we've aligned ourselves with a consistent and correct economic school of thought.
I can't possibly be the only frequenter of these forums that struggles with this sort of thing, so my question stands: what would have to happen in the physical world to shake your faith in the correctness of established Austrian economic theory?
Please refer me to material that explains business cycles and general macro-economics better than the capital theory. Thanks.
*tumbleweed rolls by*
Please refer me to material that explains business cycles and general macro-economics better than the capital theory. Thanks. *tumbleweed rolls by*
Because to ask that question is to miss the point entirely. There's no such thing as a general theory of business cycles, even if the Austrian story is logically valid and theoretically unproblematic (which it isn't), that doesn't mean to say that it has any explanatory power for any recent business cycles. Empirically different cycles throughout history have presented themselves in different ways with regards to labour markets, financial markets, goods markets and the like, these different phenomena require different explanations. And if I recall correctly, Mises original statement of the business cycle was limited to the contemporaneous housing bubble in Vienna.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Hayekianxyz: "Empirically different cycles throughout history have presented themselves in different ways with regards to labour markets, financial markets, goods markets and the like, these different phenomena require different explanations. "
Umm, did you forget to include central bank intervention in your list? An oversite?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.