>>83723
>Mainstream economics is mathematically axiomatic
No, that's exactly the problem with it. It's not axiomatic, it's rife with logical positivism.
>However 19th century mathematicians realized that they could create self-consistent, alternate geometries where parallel lines could meet.
Into the trash it goes. Lines that meet by definition are no longer parallel. A thing can't be itself and not at the same time. It's logically incoherent and therefore impossible to prove as it is impossible to grasp.
>Therefore, mainstream economics should be described as more of a mathematical philosophy than a science
Again, this is not far from the same critique of mainstream economics Austrians have. This guy is a few decades, if not centuries behind. Philosophy is a science. The very limited knowledge of Epistemology this guy has is a subset of the main branch that is Philosophy.
Welcome to baby's first critique of Economic theory. Next time you have anything to say, instead of being yet another shitposting gotchafag, include a short summary of the main points of what we're supposed to read. Not only do you look like a lazy fag who's probably not paying much attention thinking someone smarter just found a justification for his ideological views, but you're also potentially making us waste time with your shit.
Link video completely related.