>dude what if we just derive economics from abstract principles instead of actual scientific evidence?
Was it autism?
>>2090115
b...b...but you just don't understand economics!
Actually it is the theories of the economists which base their ideas on vacuums that are the least practical. For instance, Irving Fisher, who essentially believed that the collective market determined the rates of return over cost and thereby the interest rate itself, understood that his theories were not very exact, in other words reality always deviated from the tendency of the interest rate to equal the slopes of the willingness of the market to borrow or lend and the overall choices of income streams for maximum present value. Like Mill, he believe in a give and a take. The market is always fluctuating and it is these fluctuations and variations which give it life in the first place.
Von Mises was more realistic by simply stating that the interest rates determined how much fiduciary media was being circulated in the country and ending there. His problem with interest is practical, and as such is over in a few sentences whereas for other economists the problem can take entire books.
>people are inherently rational
>people even have the possibility of ever being rational
comedy gold
>>2090115
How did Mises do that?
Isn't his central thesis that conventional economists derive economics from abstract mathematical models which don't reflect reality?
>>2090149
Praxeology
>>2090149
Yes, he even went as far as to say the Dow Jones index is never a reliable reflector of general market trends.
>>2090115
>economics
>scientific evidence
lel
>>2090115
>Was it autism?
Was it autism?
>>2090160
This.
"Scientific determination can never be perfectly exact. At best. science can only determine what would happen under assumed conditions. It can never state exactly what does or will happen under actual conditions"
-Irving Fisher