That’s a spin on a common Left critique of economics: that it under-models behavior.

I say, frakk behavior. Behavior is imponderable; catallaxy is the null hypothesis.

To some extent — as far as controversies among non-professional goes, frakk the cycle as well. Laymen should be arguing about their long-term fates, about the redistributive effects of policy. But, as it’s often argued, democracy empties out the core, which makes the whole discussion moot — cycle, behavior, policy — for the purposes of NR.

Just as the fight about AGW doesn’t go to the epistemic depths of climatology, the fight about the spiraling out of budgetary populism shouldn’t focus on praxeological religion. A pragmatic doctor from a specialty that has little in the way of deep knowledge once told me — focus on symptoms and prognosis, not on diagnosis and causality; diagnosis is a formality and a starting point for the treatment-finding algorithm; causality will drive you insane.

We’re so right we’re moving Left.

I am less of a “democracy” guy than I might let on. Let’s say I believe in the Traditional March of Liberty as a new foundation for it. The march of Liberty is: Knight, Archer, Pikeman, Musketeer, Rifleman. And the franchise or control of it should be founded on those solid foundations.

Magna Carta for instance was not for everyone.

I really recommend Churchill’s History of the English Speaking Peoples Vol 1 if we want firm foundations.

Speaking of which, did anyone else become more of a leftist after reading about neoreactionary topics? My libertarian past self would be shocked by my present beliefs about economics.

not to make a big wall of text about it though, since ive been meaning to get around to a comment on rokos bassilisk that relates to this. ill just say that ‘debt: the first 5.000 years’ is one of the closest works out there contemporarily to this sort of thinking in relation to economics. which is curious in many ways since it was written by a guy who might otherwise be highly suspect and contemptible (a left anarchist, of course [inb4 what other kind is there]). much like mises, he often stops short of carrying his insights to their natural conclusions when they might possibly conflict with his normative preconceptions, making it a dangerous book to read uncritically, but useful for a discerning reactionary.

To understand value in an intensive industrial society, one must understand capital.

And the one thing Austrian economics is completely wrong, dead in the water, is capital. (And thus the cycle, but nevermind the cycle; it’s not an important question, and issues of cycle have dominated over issues of economics proper, the allocation of scarce resources). Capital reswitching is such a huge problem; it’s a real crying shame that the people who noticed that proceeded to get bogged in English Keynesian controversy.