Insomma, anche Soros dice quello che la scuola austriaca sostiene:
la scienza economica non è una scienza naturale ma sociale. L'equilibrio statico non esiste e il metodo induttivo è una cazzata.
E il bello è che questa sua teoria non è roba recente, ma del 1987... qua condensata in un suo intervento del 1994 dal MIT Department of Economics World Economy, Laboratory Conference Washington, D.C.

http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/gs1.html

Well, I want to discuss a subject which fascinates me but doesn’t seem to interest others very much. That is my theory of reflexivity which has guided me both in making money and in giving money away, but has received very little serious consideration from anybody else.

The generally accepted theory is that financial markets tend towards equilibrium, and on the whole, discount the future correctly. I operate using a different theory, according to which financial markets cannot possibly discount the future correctly because they do not merely discount the future; they help to shape it.

Classical economics was modeled on Newtonian physics. It sought to establish the equilibrium position and it used differential equations to do so. To make this intellectual feat possible, economic theory assumed perfect knowledge on the part of the participants. Perfect knowledge meant that the participants’ thinking corresponded to the facts and therefore it could be ignored. Unfortunately, reality never quite conformed to the theory.

I call the passive relationship the “cognitive function” and the active relationship the “participating function,” and the interaction between the two functions I call “reflexivity.” Reflexivity is, in effect, a two-way feedback mechanism in which reality helps shape the participants’ thinking and the participants’ thinking helps shape reality in an unending process in which thinking and reality may come to approach each other but can never become identical.