Several times I’ve been told by people I’ve discussed “Austrian” economics with that it is useless unless it can be used to predict.

I’ve never really understood this, since the anti-Austrians constantly predict and are constantly wrong, yet people still cling to the sad dreams of intervention.

As China goes into the next stage of their business cycle, as they must do, let us boldly state the prediction that Mr. Shostak suggests: Unless China further reduces their economic interventions their bust will not be soft.

That does count as a prediction, does it not?

Curt-

The “economic miracle” in China is often used by mainstream economists to try to discredit Austrians. After all, this recovery has caused “all economists in the mainstream” to re-consider their ideas, and what-not. And they point to the fact that there are strong Central Banks, to try to discredit Austrians.

The reality of it is that the economic recovery has occured in spite of, not because of Central Banks and the remaining regulations in China. The recover occured because much Statist intervention, though not all of it, was lifted. But interventionist economists point to the remaining interventions to try to (somehow) imply that intervention leads to economic recovery. Of course, that’s absurd. It is the removal of the near-complete intervention that has led to the recovery. The remaining interventions still hinder further and better recovery.