.

[AggregateDemand]

As a former economics student who still reads widely on the subject, you should be aware that the major theories developing in economics right now (following on the horrible attempt to determine everything in economics on the basis of mathematics) are from the field of behavioral economics, which are largely based on social science, especially sociology and psychology as well as new experiments by economists and that all of the all assumptions of 'economic rationalism' are being reexamined.

While economists know that in the aggregate the 'economic rationalism' theories are correct, i.e consumption drops as prices rise in relation to other prices, economists are finding all sorts of cases where people don't behave according to the 'rational person' theory.

That has been the case for over 100 years now, though the Austrians used logical induction rather than econometrics to support their theories, many of which are now widely accepted.

[AggregateDemand]

Life is not difficult to figure out. Exuberance, self-belief, creativity, sacrifice, love etc move humanity forward. Rational economic thought allows us to solve our problems and resolve our disputes, which thwarts pride, violence, avarice, etc.

Once upon a time, the people who founded this nation surmised that reason would eliminate the problem of tyrannical non-representative government, but they never supposed it would carry humanity forward. Instead, they thought moral sentiments and idealistic dreams and creativity would flourish in a free society. These ambitions would make free societies great and wealthy.

I've never seen an economists try to invent any device with economic theory. I've never known any economist to prescribe economic theory when choosing a spouse or establishing patterns of family behavior. Unfortunately, we never have a shortage of bumbling, slobbering plebeians who attempt to emote solutions to complex problems like poverty, unemployment, lack of education, hunger, sickness, old age, and other issues. Also, they often try to punish people for doing things they don't like, and they often wrap their feelings in a veil of economic thought, proposing taxes, penalties, and mandates to enforce "justice".

Thinking like an economist is as necessary as thinking like a father or mother or artist or philanthropist. Few people bother to try. They make excuses instead.

[AggregateDemand]

Just for your edification. "Econometrics" today means "statistical methods used in economics" and not "usage of math in economics". Austrians historically used exactly as much (or as little) math as was common during their lifetime (this, of course, is not the case with the recent cultists, but was the case up to and including the likes of Mises). Math for economists is, of course, but a simple (once you learn it) way of doing logical reasoning.

Have you ever heard of praxeology?

[AggregateDemand]

Actually, although it seems Ag is not a big fan of theirs, one of the so-called 'pop economists' either the economics Freak Stephen Levitt or the Hidden Economist Tim Harford wrote a chapter in one of their books on precisely this.

Ag, I'd appreciate the bibliography, thanks if you get the chance.

You have to differentiate between polemics, and actual policy proposals. Polemics can be highly entertaining, which works for people who are selling books.

[AggregateDemand]

To be blunt: in general, economic thinking is pretty puerile and irresponsible when it comes to the "long run", when it comes to real resource shortages and environmental degradation.

Really? Addressing scarcity with a market and open-bid is a puerile solution compared to what? Compared to a hegemon exerting absolute control over the scarce resource and allocating it according to the preferences of the hegemon? Compared to simplistic economic models that allocate resources based upon need, without any concern for the long-term ability of society to generate utility for anyone?

The purpose of reason and economic thinking is to be the least wrong and the least bad of the available solutions. Everyone who tries to uninstall the fail-safes is merely expediting the next great famine or mass genocide.

[AggregateDemand]

I'm pretty sure the EPA is the fail-safe you're looking for.  Uninstall it at our peril.

The arguments against the EPA are that it need not be an independent agency beyond the purview of Congress and the executive branch.