Maybe you haven’t realized yet that “predictions are especially hard because they involve the future” and that Austrian economists are telling you that when the procedure is wrong it will lead to bad results and it’s not a matter of “if” but “when’.
Wow! Maybe you should read Hazlitt’s work in ”Economics in one lesson” to get you back to Austrian Economics basics and start from there. The core claim is simple, “government interventions do more bad than good and the smaller and less intrusive the government the better the capital allocation and decisions will end up being from the private sector and price signaling”. Sounds familiar? P.S. The “broken window fallacy“ in the first chapters is again one of the most fundamental notions in Austrian Economics and it’s pretty clear. What is it that you don’t understand? Be specific.
It seems to me that the whole thread is littered with academics who adhere to intellectualism vs realism. Austrian economics is about the latter. One of the best (but overlooked) books to read (fundamental stuff - which is what most academics fail to take into account) is Hazlitt’s “Economics in one lesson”. It’s essentially Austrian school 101 and I think most of you in here need to retake the course. The Austrians were always right and now it WILL become evident. Austrian economics is existential economics (in a sense), and that fact puts them apart from traditional economic theory that’s model-based. That’s a huge difference right there and very much in line with the most modern work on perceptual reality (see, for example, Don Hoffman’s work). That’s a huge deal that points to the incredible insight that the Austrian school is based upon.
~A participating agent of the market…
The intrinsic vagueness and difficulty in defining human action is a serious problem. This is why the Austrians focus on apparent and factual practicality. If there’s action there’s always reaction and these are, both, measurable elements. Pondering on dubious incentives is the slippery slope towards relativism.