You need say no more. Your silence has said it all.

And now, perhaps, we may add another layer to Masonomics:

See no new ideas, hear no new ideas, speak no new ideas.

Where are all the learned critics of the past, from behind closed doors, White, Friedman, Hazlett, High, and the young lions of today?

With all due respect for its good works, couldn't Masonomics find one little corner somewhere for a new idea?

I have been chasing you for thirty years, and now here you are right behind me.

You are my favorite of all time, and the best pure economist in the Austrian School today.

You once told me what you thought was wrong with my theory of redistribution.

Won't you share your wisdom with the rest of us now?

Not that it's invalid for you to make a praxeological critique. I think it's a bogus critique, but it's still valid to make it. But I don't think that's what Cody was saying.

I have to disagree on this point. Cody's argument isn't that econ doesn't use math… it's just that it uses math when it shouldn't.

To accept the principles of statistics one is bound to the axioms of mathematics… and these axioms are inherently (and perfectly) logical. To accept the principles of econometrics one is bound to the axioms of economic theory. These axioms are not logical.

Adam Smith defined it by the Invisible Hand. For, it was not about visible events, but the invisible cause and effect relations among them.

Since you could not observe the Invisible Hand, it was not empirical.

And since, if you couldn’t observe it, you couldn’t measure, count, or calculate it, it was not mathematical.

Since, as Mises explained, action is an offshoot of reason, and reason has the power to make clear through pure ratiocination the essential features of action, it is a science, not of observation and counting, but conception and deduction, reasoning and thinking.

There are no branches of economics, just economics and non-economics.

There is no micro and macro economics, for all economics is both micro and macro, the macro effects of micro action.

There is no “technical” economics, just technical pretension, showing that you can sling the bull around with the best of them.

There is no experimental economics. It is all theoretical.

There is no psychological economics. It deals not with the motivations of action but with action itself. From the axiom of action, that men act to remove unease, economics moves through all that it implies, asking not why men believe that a particular action will remove their unease, but whether or not it will do so.

Of course, there’s more to it than that. But, at least, that’s a beginning.

It now informs how I think about everything from the economy, to politics to how I do my job and interact with people.

I, for one, am a better person because of what you and the other GMU economists have been doing.

And I fully agree with what you just posted.

And on a second reading, this could have two interpretations. One (1.) could be that you are questioning actual claims that have been made. The second interpretation (2.) is that you are speculating on the possibility of validly making such a claim, and finding such a prospect impossible. If it's that second interpretation then I agree with you. If it's the first, it shouldn't be too hard to provide an example, should it?

Or for you to provide an example with yours.