Why I am not an Austrian Economist part two.

Before elaborating on my reasons as to why I am uninterested in the works of Austrian economics, it would be most beneficial for the reader to understand what Austrian economics is. In brief Austrian economics is a school of thought built upon similar foundations as welfare, Neo-classical economics, and principles that are often a derivative of these two fields. For example, both Austrian economists and mainstream economics assume that consumer behavior has at least some kind of rational element. Henceforth the economic models provided by both schools of thought may vary slightly, but in many cases both are based off of very similar assumptions. One shouldn’t be surprised that a school of thought developed in the early part of the 20^th century would include these principles. After all, economics of that time period was still muddled in the works of 19^th century thinkers. Thus, Austrian economics is a school of thought that relies on the framework of 19^th century economists.

Economics as a social science has evolved greatly since the early parts of the 20^th century, and although many of its fields still rely on some old axioms it has developed new methodologies, research techniques and so forth. Meanwhile the Austrian school refuses to participate, and conduct research with these advancements in thought. Therefore, Austrian economics has become an exclusive field that only dedicates itself to playing by its own rules. Thus even when Austrian economists are right, or share the same conclusion as others, there isn’t much else to gain beyond this. In short my disagreement with Austrian economics relies on the fact that their findings lack creativity, innovation, and similar concepts that form the core of developing greater insight.  What use is a field of thought if it restricts the mind from engaging in creative, and critical thought?