Such theories lead to the view, expressed in Viennese kaleidics, that the turbulence of markets cannot be smoothed through government interference, and must therefore be left to their own devices.
British economist George Lennox Sharman Shackle, who has been characterised as a post-Keynesian but also as influenced by Austrian economics, made an attempt to challenge classical rational choice theory.
This status, however, as Shackle continues in defining the term, "can change as swiftly, as completely, and on as slight a provocation as the loose, ephemeral mosaic of the kaleidoscope.
German economist Ludwig Lachmann, an important contributor to the Austrian School stated, in agreement with Shackle, that the magnitude of profits in an economy, in each period, is shaped mainly by "short-period forces."
Moreover, as Wagner also points out,[4] Friedrich Hayek’s (1932) treatment of the business cycle as departing from a position of Walrasian equilibrium is a similar effort.
"[4] The Austrian criticism reflects the belief that a kaleidic vision is contrary to the effort to uncover and articulate "objective claims about reality," and essentially promotes a nihilist point of view, "where analysts are free to see what they choose to see.
[4] In contrast to the Austrian critics who perceived kaleidics as nihilistic, Stephen Parsons [7] argued that it is orthodox economics, instead, with "its readiness to embrace fictive models that give definitive answers to questions, that is nihilistic," while Warren Samuels[8] asserted that "if the charge of nihilism is applied to any system of thought that leaves the future open, nihilism is superior to the alternative.