Yesterday's post tried to lay out why I believe the fundamental difference between Austrians, Chicago school, and Samuelsonian economists is only one of emphasis. Thinking more about it, I was reminded about an interview with Kirzner that also bring in the use of math in economics (one of my favorite topics to get myself in trouble).
In an interview for Liberty Fund, Kirzner says the following (54:20):
If one believes that the description and analysis of equilibrium states constitutes the central task of economic analysis, then the role for mathematics is clear and indisputable because mathematics can and should and is able to grapple with the meaning of an equilibrium state... and to the extent that's all one has to do, then mathematics would be fine. The problem is, as Austrian see it, is that that is mere footnote to what economists ought to and should be doing, that is understanding the market process.
If I keeps things like this in mind, I am forced to be more sympathetic to different approaches. The reason some people don't use mathematics is because it is not well equipped to analyze what those people think is important. The reason other people force everything into mathematics is because they do want to analyze equilibrium states.
The same applies to non-math differences. In Becker's textbook, the focus is on describing how whole markets work. If that's what I want to do, his aggregation techniques might appeal to me. If I think the study should be that actions of individuals, I will not want to aggregate in such ways. It's a difference of emphasis, compared to anything antithetical.
This whole point might be trivial, but I forget it. I doubt I'm the only one.
Of course, that just kicks the can. Then the question becomes, not what techniques and models should we use? But, what is worth studying? And I wish I had an answer for that... If you do, let me know.
Michael Harris tweeted at me something I found quite interesting.
@BrianCAlbrecht I remember George Fane asking Israel Kirzner how he'd analyse a tax on wine. "Oh, like you would" he answered.
— Michael Harris (@MichaelH_PhD) August 18, 2015
I think that gets at one important aspect. If Austrians wanted to study the same things as non-Austrians, they would use the same tools. I'd bet the reverse is also true.