I'm not sure I agree with that, because peoples' views change dramatically based on where in Maslow's pyramid they are. If you had an entire society completely focused on their daily meal, you might be able to accurately predict much of their behavior because their values would primarily be centered around the acquisition of that next meal. After that, however, values begin to focus on "pursuit of happiness", which becomes very philosophical rather than utilitarian.

I do agree that basic economic principles such as supply and demand, laissez faire vs Keynesianism, etc. are all valid principles, but they only serve as very rough indicators. We can predict that because of the continued violation of sound economic principles that our economy will collapse, but we can't really predict when that will happen because it largely depends on those less measurable aspects. To go further into the realm of a hard science, we have to be able to be much more precise in our understanding so as to accurately predict outcomes - including when, where, etc. I question as to whether or not this will ever really become feasible simply because - again - we're trying to measure a constantly changing medium - human values.

Hayek' s epistemology is based on his ideas about cultural evolution. I do not think you can call it empiricism. It is more random group learning.

Humans have a certain nature and require certain things to survive. Proper values are based on that nature. But even if people chose the wrong values, economics properly defined can say a lot.

The problem with that is the fact that much of economics is not hard science, but rather social science as it deals with the aggregation of individual choices. Choices are based on values, and values are individual. They are also subject to change based on either mental criteria (new information) or emotional criteria (hysteria, public "appeal", etc.), making them very fluid.

I don't really think we can look at much in economics as a "predictive" science, but rather historical analysis. We can learn much of general trends and prevailing attitudes and we can isolate many of the tools in use, but I'm not so sure we can use them to effectively map out the future as we would in a hard science.

hear hear

Collectivism variants accord with democratic notions of peoples' rights and not a person's rights. It amounts to individuals who have rights claiming those rights constitute a greater right when chanting an incoherent slogan together. "Yes we can" is the slogan of our time. Because those same who choose to chant that slogan don't know how to say, "Yes I can". The whole may be greater than the sum of its parts, but if you want to build a bridge to complete the Phoenix Durango, one chink in the chain - one person who doesn't know yes, I can - that is, one rusted bolt that is made from cheap steel, that bolt will take a whole bridge down with it. Before you can say yes we can, you have to be able to say yes I can. Otherwise you're just counting on the next person to do the work (or stealing) for you. And the Austrians will ask you to do their philosophic work for their free market and backstab you with irrational traditionalist social politics. That's not a bridge I care to build.

I stand corrected. sorry.

You might find "The Student Chronicles," by Alonzo Cobb, useful in considering some of these issues. It can be found on Amazon and Kindle.

This sounds like Hayek was using empiricism, rather than logic.

What a horrible mindset on his part - skeptical of reality. What does that leave anyone? Frightening to contemplate. This is going to haunt me at 3:00 in the morning.

Economics is adrift. The two most important questions in economics are: 1) What is the source of real per capita increases in wealth, and 2) What was the cause of the industrial revolution? Without proper answers to those questions, it is just groping in the dark.

My talk at Atlas Summit 2015 discusses these as does my new non-fiction book, the Source of Economic Growth.

You win a brand new ---

The production costs of automation do much to employ way beyond that 5%!

"Economics in One Lesson" was by Henry Hazlitt. His is a much more solid foundation.

From what I have heard of Rand's comments about Hayek she recommends his book economics in one lesson but that is as far as she goes. listen to her 1961 or 62 FHF talk and you will hear her.

"Hakey"

Economics follows fundamental principals that are very similar to conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. The mathematics of the time-value of money is almost identical to the mathematics of energy accumulation, consumption, and distribution. It is necessary to separate ideology from the scientific method.

Economics is supposed to be a science. However, the roots of modern economics are based on the anti-science, anti-reason movement of the Scottish "Enlightenment." David Hume and Adam Smith were close friends.

It occurs to me that it is important to decide if economics is an invention or a discovery. Hayek and Adam Smith discuss it in terms of identifying the properties of a natural phenomena while Keynes seems to view it as an invention that can be manipulated at will. As a physicist I lean toward the discovery perspective because there are so many parallels between economic behavior and physical phenomena. If economics is a natural extension of fundamental physical processes then treating it like an invention is inherently dangerous. It is much like altering the law of gravity because it is inconvenient as presently understood.

Interesting comparison. Thanks for posting. There is some direct evidence for, "...there is pre-sensory knowledge embedded in the structure of the mind and the nervous system’s synaptic connections which can be further created and modified over time." If this is factually true, then it is real and we just have to go onward from there.

Jan

that's good! second belly laugh of the morning. thanks herb!

Hayek can be compared to putting a Band-Aid on the bleeding wound of a hemopheliac. Most emotion based philosophies have only one cure for everything eventually, that being pragmatism which never accounts for its collateral damage.

After reading the comparison chart, newbie Rand fan Old Dino could only conclude that Hayek should know all about The Road To Serfdom.
Old Dino was initially relieved to see that Ayn Rand was not being compared to Salma Hayek.

Yes

Well there are competing problems, one is as you say doing just enough to get by instead of doing the best the other is doing nothing because all solutions are flawed. It was the latter I was referring to.

I don't think that we are going to, at least in the near term, get the country to accept objectivism. Socialism is too firmly entrenched with too many people benefiting from it. If we could use Hayek's non collectivist approach to the economy with the promise that the economy will then generate more for everyone we might make ground.

Human perception of reality is necessarily flawed, our sense organs are limiting factors. We believe, for example that objects are solid although physics tells us that they are mostly empty space. Nevertheless that doesn't mean there isn't a real, knowable, world.