So now I am a bit perplexed as Friedman, Williams, and Sowell are all three monetarists as opposed to the Austrian school. George Mason University, which you mentioned, is the poster university for monetarism theories.
Friedman held that economics, even on the macro scale is empirical in nature, that it can be tested and predicted.
If that is Friedman POV it is, I think, overstating the power of the dicipline
At best economics is useful as a predictive tool equivalent to that of the science of meteorology.
It can give you some benefit sometimes, if something completely unexpected doesn't happen.
But as economics is not the study of inanimate objects, but rather the study of human beings, (humans who respond to changes in the economy, and by doing so change the economy) its predictive value is
rather limited.
Von Mises and Hayek held that the human factor makes such a view folly.
Ultimately the market consists of people, who will do unpredictable things and therefor economics cannot be considered empirical.
Also, I think a
tad overstated.
While certainly human behavior plays an enormous part in MACRO, some of the standard tools of macro-economic will work under
relatively stable economic circumstances.
The shorter the projection, the more likely that economics can indicate the consequence of some change it is studying.
But when the herd instinct take over? No telling where
that will lead an economy precisely because society can CHANGE THE RULES of their economy
at will.
Von Mises particularly promoted Praxeology, economics as a moral and philosophical pursuit rather than as a scientific pursuit.
In that sense I am 100% with him. (and as an aside, you have now forced me to study Von Mises)
Economics is quite rightly a dicipline that belongs in the SOCIAL SCIENCES precisely because it is the study of HUMAN behavior within an artifically constructed environment we call society.
Economics, depsite all its love of metrics, is NOT a hard science.
It is a soft science..
.
