[Veetil and Wagner] criticize the standard view, which is that in a large diversified economy the impact of micro level disturbances tend to balance out.
It is absolutely true that, at the macro level, micro level disturbances tend to balance out. That is what’s wrong with macroeconomics. All this aggregation masks the human element that is the core of economics. At the end of the day, we are studying what Mises called “human action”, and what Adam Smith called “a certain propensity in human nature…the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.” We are studying human behavior. Economics is a social science; to aggregate so far as to balance out micro (ie, human) disturbances is to remove the “social” from the social science. Our focus as economists should be on these social aspects, on these individual aspects and the institutions that arise to deal with the human element, of economics. Anything else is, to quote James Buchanan, just applied mathematics; technically interesting, but economically useless.