I was reading about the Lange Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_Model) and found this:
“Lavoie and Kirzner both argue that Lange’s trial and error proposal is illegitimate. Mackenzie argues that the trial and error proposal is irrelevant: the Lange model fails because it aims at simulating the wrong markets. However, like many of the Austrian Schools claims, none of these assertions have been proven.”
I feel this is stupid, as most Austrian economists always prove (my means of logic) everything considering this issue… Or am I wrong?
Considering that the School utilizes a subjectivist stance on epistemological concerns of markets, yes you have to start from some basic logical premises to derive any conclusion about said markets. But, this can also be framed from the point of view of the natural sciences such as meteorology or genetics: that the given constructs by which the market operates always will limit the scope of knowledge (both in objectivity and reliability) to necessistate finding “first order principles” that explain the widest scope of all behaviors rather than attempting to predict the particulars of them (as would be possible in a Newtonian/Cartesian world).
Define “proven”. Where have Lange’s assertions been “proven”? Perhaps the imbeciles who wrote that article do not understand a proof when they see it? Perhaps they are lying?