You had my full attention.
@TraceMayer would love to here you facilitate a conversation with @evoskuil and @NickSzabo4 on all things Austrian #bitcoinhttps://twitter.com/MartyBent/status/1171845339797544960 …
-
Nick is much more of a historian. Empirical review is interesting but doesn’t have a place in my conclusions, which are strictly rational, in accordance with AE as an axiomatic system. So it might be interesting but we’d likely spend a lot of time talking past each other.
-
-
Observational, explicitly excluded by AE.
-
Well, from the theoretical field of economics, but not from AE in general. The historical and theortical fields of economics are both part of AE but are distinct and shouldn't be mixed.
-
AE is ambiguous but as commonly used we are referring to the rational basis on which Mises places the system, and emphasized by Rothbard, that history can not prove anything in economics as human choices are subject to free will. This is the essence of excluding objective value.
-
I'm using the Mengerian approach to define the Austrian school (as detailed in his Investigations). Mises is of course a key thinker of the Austrian school but I think defining AE based on his work would be too narrow.
-
Mises makes certain errors, and Rothbard perpetuates them. Their predecessors did as well. My objective is not to follow any of them, but to determine what can be proven (known). For the reasons I’ve given, and those alone, empiricism isn’t rational.
-
This is why I usually avoid saying AE and instead refer to either Catallactics or rational economics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.