My favorite topic, Austrian method

I was reading and commenting this facebook post today:

"When I think about the Austrian School of Economics, and I try to isolate what the key features of it are that separate it from other, more widely accepted schools of thought, one thing that stands out about it, to me, is its insistence on a separation of methodology between the natural and the social sciences.I'm curious to know if anyone else here knows how one might go about getting more clarity on the actual philosophical underpinnings for the Austrian claim that the social sciences are a priori, and not a mere matter of historical record keeping. 

I'm not interested in the HISTORY of this development. Rather, I want to know if there has been any work done, or is any work being done, to analyze the epistemological foundation for these Austrian claims. I'm wanting to know if anyone is working to make these understandings clearer.

I believe Carl Menger may have been attempting to do precisely this with his Investigations Into the Methods of the Social Sciences. Unfortunately, as this work had to be translated into English, I've never felt that I was getting through to his intended meaning.

I'd certainly hope that someone, somewhere, had written more precisely on this topic since then. Hopefully someone here can direct me.

Thanks so much."

First, my thought was "theory and history". To which I recieved this reply:

I had high hopes for that one. Unfortunately, I didn't feel that it got to the heart of the matter. Mises is very dear to me, and I'm insanely indebted to him for his brilliance and his courage. But Theory and History came off to me as an impassioned rant against Marx more than a formal analysis of how the the topics in the title relate to one another.

And my response:

 I think he does a fine job discussing the topics in the title, but they only make up a small portion towards the end of the book. I also think that a lot of what is meant by Mises and others who talk about theory and history, or thymology and "verstehen" is somewhat intuitive and its not so much that any more work has to be done in the matter. They just keep tossing the same ideas around and ultimately saying the same things in different ways.

I think you either get it or you don't. To me, the most critical aspect of it all is that economics studies "complex phenomena", and as such, unlike the natural sciences, no "experiments" can be performed. I place experiments in "s because the point is, what makes an experiment useful towards certain knowledge is the isolation of variables, which is impossible in a complex phenomenon. So basically all econometrics, mathematical modeling, predictions, etc. are incapable of producing more than speculative analytics. Economics in the Misesian method provides certain knowledge regarding cause and effect. The lack of empirical data supporting the claim merely demonstrates other causal factors must be at work. Again, it is impossible to verify using any model or calculation. 

So here I sit, knowing I've solved no riddles for anyone who doesn't get it the way I do.  I simply haven't seen an argument against Mises that makes any sense yet.

Economic Rates of Change

Not that I'm advocating mathematical economics, but as a mental exercise, why don't more economists make reference to rates of change in economic well-being?  Why aren't there extensive studies in everyday conversation that show, not just how policy affects change, but how policy affects rates of change over time.

A specific policy will affect prices, employment, capital accumulation or consuption, land/material use, etc. and all its "lengthening" or "shortening" the capital structure relative to those changes, over time.  Point being, i.e., employment could be on the rise, while the 2nd order derivative (acceleration, or momentum, or whatever physics corollary you choose) could have a negative impact.

dreamers of all sorts.

I can't help noticing that it never matters what one person's view of utopia is; in the end the only thing that matters to everyone is satisfaction of want, and disutility of labor.  In this, libertarians and specifically austro-libertarians have the only complete, consistent plan for maximizing satisfaction of want, while requiring less labor over time.

Mises Boot Camp

I thought this Boot Camp was a pretty good introduction, although it seems they employed a couple summer fellows to give lectures that I think could use some practice.  As usual Jeff Deist makes a great case for why we should be interested.

But its the Austrian's who aren't scientific.

I always find myself cringing at the phrase "not falsifiable by experience". I think it's because the reaction is always to the effect of calling Austrians non-scientific. The point isn't that it isn't falsifiable by "experience". The point is that under the "scientific method" itself for an experience to verify or falsify anything, to demonstrate cause and effect, it requires controlling all the variables--something fundamentally impossible in economics. This is the key issue I think most Austrians fail to make abundantly clear in their explanation of "experience".

I repeat, they fail to make it abundantly clear. They have a tendency to mention it, but not emphasize it's critical importance. This becomes obvious when people aren't immediately convinced of the correctness of the Austrian method.

The once widely used "ceteris paribus" phrase implies this used to be common knowledge.  The Austrians just didn't fall for scientism and physics envy.

Another campaign begins

8 years ago I started paying attention to the specific problems politicians were harping on most loudly.  Wall street speculation, corporate control of the economy, the military industrial complex, religious zealots of different faiths assuming power over governments here and abroad, "deregulation", etc.

By the time i'd absorbed a year+ of being bombarded with propaganda and the talk of oncoming recession, up to my eyeballs and ears in shit, i cast a vote for Barack Obama.  I was looking for hope and change.

The economy collapsed into recession that loomed on for years and my interest in worldly concerns grew.  I'd say reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson​ was a major eye opener that set me on a path to seek truth first, and action later.  How could this man make so many points of contention appear so easy to understand, as well as so obvious as to the truth?  5 years of self-study in economics later I find myself much closer to the truth, yet significantly removed from popular (allowable) opinion.

The past month or two have seen a revival of presidential politics and a surprising pair of hot ticket names.  Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  In the USA, a self-described Socialist and a comb-over celebrity.  Perhaps that's enough said.

Economy to hell.  As I look back I see the useful idiot I was and how much further we've gone down the same road.

Vick, the scourge of Pittsburgh?

Oh come on! I know Vick is no martyr and he's sure no sweetheart.  But I seriously think he's become the scapegoat for all things wrong with professional sports culture over talking to Pittsburgh.  Has everyone forgotten the murderers?  the drug dealers?  the guys who shoot themselves in clubs?  or flagrantly disrespect the law?  How about the fact that the vast majority of professional athletes live it up like kings and then go bankrupt immediately after retirement?  I don't even mean offense when i say, they're idiots.  Why the big deal that won't die in Vick?  Why The Donald, MJ, or OJ?  Bread and Circus.

I'm not defending Vick.  I do attempt to apply principle to my life.  Principle and Virtue.  Principle suggests the NFL, NBA, MLB, and a host of others are full of bad people doing bad deeds all the time.  But I still think forgiveness is a virtue.  And Vick at least did his penance.