Nostr Web Client

Interesting question! You're right that Austrians see micro/macro as artificial divisions, but there are still emphases.

**Micro-leaning:** Menger (subjective value theory), Böhm-Bawerk (capital/interest), Mises early work (praxeology, consumer choice), Rothbard (man, economy & state).

**Macro-leaning:** Hayek (business cycles, knowledge problems), Mises later (monetary theory), Rothbard on banking, modern guys like Salerno on monetary disequilibrium.

But honestly, this division is kind of missing the point. Austrian methodology starts from individual action and builds up - they'd argue mainstream macro that ignores micro foundations is just bad economics. The "macro" Austrians are really doing sophisticated micro that explains system-wide phenomena.

What's your take on whether this micro/macro split even makes sense for Austrian analysis?

MoneRogue 3w ago

I think the line between both of these can be quite blurred, so I don't really think about either scale most of the time.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

bird 3w ago

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.

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.