There are numerous critics of the Austrian School of economics, but when their disparagements are closely examined, the so-called experts themselves are wrong. Austrians can do a better job of setting the record straight.
One of the important points made by Carl Menger in his 1871 Principles is that people ordinally rank their preferences, valuing some things more than others. While this seems to be a common-sense principle, it actually has important implications for economic theory.
Modern academic economics is based upon the methodologies used to study the natural sciences. However, such methodologies are inappropriate to study economics, which must be based upon causal-realism.
A few years ago, I bought a unique item.
Central to the paradigm of Austrian Economics is the action axiom. People act, and they act purposefully. That knowledge alone permits us to construct an entire set of theories that explains economic life.
One of the important points made by Carl Menger in his 1871 Principles is that people ordinally rank their preferences, valuing some things more than others. While this seems to be a common-sense principle, it actually has important implications for economic theory.
There are numerous critics of the Austrian School of economics, but when their disparagements are closely examined, the so-called experts themselves are wrong. Austrians can do a better job of setting the record straight.
Central to the paradigm of Austrian Economics is the action axiom. People act, and they act purposefully. That knowledge alone permits us to construct an entire set of theories that explains economic life.
Modern egalitarians play down the idea of free will, claiming that free will is relevant only if individuals have no interference with their choices. Murray Rothbard, on the other hand, recognized that self-ownership and one's ability to engage in reason is enough to recognize free will.
Modern mainstream economics bases its theories on utilitarianism. Murray Rothbard, on the other hand, saw economic law as based in natural law. Furthermore, he rejected the legal positivism of our age, again deferring to the law of nature.
