Questions I think Austrian Economics should answer as a discipline - Why did Korea, Japan, and China get far wealthier and more successful with a rise in so-called "state capacity" and industrial policy? Was this in spite of "authoritarian" policies, or did such policies take on a form Austrians have yet to predict/analyse? - Is the Austrian Business Cycle Theory universally applicable to economic crises, and if not, what exogenous theories (like Friedman's or RBC) can be correct and not mutually exclusive with Austrian analysis? - Is Mathematical formalism ever valid in expressing certain propositions (and is it more ideal?) ? Rothbard uses a deal of equations in MES, but Mises was apprehensive to such, and there are some attempts in more recent Austrian works to formalise theory (see: Cachanosky, Filleule) - To what extent are Economic laws we find applicable to historical societies such as Rome, Ancient Greece, and Ancient China? How different is the underlying logic? - Sraffa's replies to Hayek, and how to properly rectify Bohm-Bawerk's confused notion of "period of production" that people like I think Knight critiqued once and for all (I think Lachmann's on the right track). - Just how compatible are the concepts of imperfect & monopolistic competition á lá Robinson to the school? How feasible are the conditions of oligopsony and monopsony, and how much do they actually distort the market? - How significant both rent-seeking and preferential subsidies are to the existence of the modern-day "big business" or 'large corporation' (more of an empirical than a methodological question)