What do you think of the following proposition?:
If praxeology is the study of purposeful human action and the trade cycle is (partially) the result of non-purposeful action, then the trade cycle can't (fully) be explained using praxeology.
Is the conditional true? If it is, what about the antecedent?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
That would be true, but you have to keep in mind what purposful and unpurposful action is according to praxeology.
The latter would actually be an oxymoron, action is always purposful, and it's contrasted with, say, reactions that our bodies are programmed with, like jerking your hand back when you touch something hot.
If such reactions could cause a trade cycle, then you'd be right, but I don't see how they can.
And even if they could, ABCT would still be true, there'd just be more to the story then praxeology could explain.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap