Neumann and Morgensteri compared Solitaire to a communistic society, Alchian compared the free market to the game of golf, I’m not sure how to accept these types of analogies.
Here is my thing with econometerics, would a truly free market society choose econometeric analysis? Would its predictive power hold any real market value out from under the hands of the buracratic economists (which account for about half of all economic positions)? and how would we know its true value (i.e. how would we know if it is good economics) without a free market to decide?
From Human Action, Chapter 6:
There is not the slightest analogy between playing games and the conduct of business within a market society. The card player wins money by outsmarting his antagonist. The businessman makes money by supplying customers with goods they want to acquire. There may exist an analogy between the strategy of a card player and that of a bluffer. There is no need to investigate this problem. He who interprets the conduct of business as trickery is on the wrong path.
The characteristic feature of games is the antagonism of two or more players or groups of players. The characteristic feature of business
Within the frame of a market economy competition does not involve antagonism in the sense in which this term is applied to the hostile clash of incompatible interests. Competition, it is true, may sometimes or even often evoke in the competitors those passions of hatred and malice which usually accompany the intention of inflicting evil on other people. Psychologists are therefore prone to confuse combat and competition. But praxeology must beware of such artificial and misleading equivocations. From its point of view there exists a fundamental difference between catallactic competition and combat. Competitors aim at excellence and preeminence in accomplishments within a system of mutual cooperation.