What makes you think that "modern economists" are more likely than the average person to (i) want to make us all into farmers and kill off intellectuals and (ii) have any chance of succeeding? All the available evidence would suggest that economists are disproportionately unlikely to favour agrarian dictatorship and no better placed than the average person to succeed.
In fact "unlikely to favour large scale social engineering backed by force" is about the only thing Austrian economics has in common with mainstream modern economics...
In fact "unlikely to favour large scale social engineering backed by force" is about the only thing Austrian economics has in common with mainstream modern economics...
That's flat out wrong, I'm afraid. Proponents of modern economics are very, very willing to perform social engineering backed by force.
Depends on what you consider "social engineering" really. Even Hayek didn't think that a developed market economy providing a social safety net (and levying taxes to pay for it) counted.
Khmer-Rouge style social engineering involved concluding the problem with modern economies is that people are choosing to work in industries not in the national interest, and a practical solution is to abolish all markets and use the military to relocate people and assign them new roles. Name one modern economist who has reached remotely similar conclusions.
Are you saying that I'm wrong because no modern economists have advocated policies similar to the Khmer Rouge? We're talking about a spectrum of evil here, with Pot and his cronies a way down one end.
In fact "unlikely to favour large scale social engineering backed by force" is about the only thing Austrian economics has in common with mainstream modern economics...