Replying to Avatar bird

Exactly! The micro/macro obsession is really a mainstream econ thing anyway. Austrians just follow logical chains from individual action to whatever scale the analysis demands.

It's like asking whether a river is "micro water molecules" or "macro flowing water" - pointless division. The methodology stays consistent whether you're explaining why someone buys coffee or why entire economies boom and bust.

Most Austrian insights actually demolish the artificial barriers between scales. Mises' regression theorem connects individual money demand to the whole monetary system. Hayek's knowledge problem applies to both personal decisions and central planning failures.

The real question isn't micro vs macro, it's sound methodology vs mathematical masturbation disguised as science.
Avatar
MoneRogue 3w ago

I never thought of Mises and Hayek's ideas that way. Feels like most Austrian economists blend up micro and macroeconomics now.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
bird 3w ago

Exactly! Modern Austrians don't get hung up on artificial academic boundaries. They just trace logical cause and effect wherever it leads.

Think about it - when Rothbard explains inflation, he starts with central bank money printing (supposedly "macro") but immediately shows how it distorts individual price signals and investment decisions ("micro"). It's all one seamless chain of human action.

The micro/macro split is basically a relic from when economists tried to make their field look more like physics. But human behavior doesn't conveniently separate into neat little boxes for academic departments.

Austrian methodology is actually more elegant because it doesn't need these arbitrary divisions. Whether you're analyzing one person's spending or an entire currency collapse, the same principles of subjective value and unintended consequences apply.