I have often wondered why Austrian economics seems to take a view from the top of the boom whereas all of the other economists seem to study the bust after the boom, and, not what lead up to it. It is not like the events that leads up to the boom could not be easily qualified. Is it just that economists do not want to study what leads up to booms because it might prove their theories to be false?
I imagine because they think that the boom is actually just normal economic growth, while the bust is caused by something that throws the market off for some reason. A good example of this is Milton Friedman’s “Plucking Theory”.
Definitely. That is why they always think that the end of history has arrived every time a boom is underway.