First, I'm not sure if I understand what is so uniquely Austrian about the calculation argument. As I understand it the point is that entrepreneurs maximise profits by putting goods to their most valued uses and the price system is exactly what allows them to do this by means of relative price adjustments and profit and loss accounting (very briefly put). My first point is that this implicitly assumes some sort of harmony of interests, in some cases where this assumption doesn't hold, I don't see how the calculation argument is valid. In the case of asymmetric information, externalities or monopoly power entrepreneurs maximise profits by going against what is in the public interest (yes, Austrians will find this term objectionable). But the other point I'd like to make is that this is a pretty standard point in even principles level micro...
Second, in reality firms costs are highly interdependent and often inextricable from one another. What implications does this have for profit loss accounting? Well, as far as I can tell a lot of big firms don't actually know exactly how to maximise profits so they resort to rules of thumb. My can't government do this? And more importantly, in firms still exist and are efficient, clearly there are some other considerations as to what serves consumers best, why shouldn't they be applied to governments as well?
Third, one of the big arguments against math that I've noticed is that it isn't necessary, something along the lines of "we can express these arguments in verbal logic". I think this is completely besides the point, identifying correct arguments and saying, ex post, that we can say what is in mathematical terms in verbal logic misses the point. The math was useful in fleshing out these arguments in the first place.
Four, I've asked this before, but I want to ask it again: what justifies the large salaries of econ PhD in the private sector? Their model building abilities and econometric skills are often used so what causes firms to be so systematically misguided (that is, according to Austrians).
Five, what is wrong with the concept of willingness to pay?
Strangeloop:When every debate with non-Austrians degenerates into, "You just dont know our arguments!" then I find it completely unproductive.
Well what do you expect them to say? It's clear you can't be bothered to research what they are advocating and it's naive for you to expect them to try and explain 100-200 years worth of economic theory over an internet chat forum.
Several people here are clearly raising points that run in direct conflict with several Austrian fundamental principles. Like the calculation problem overlooked above. These are fundamental, elementary Austrian positions. When ignoring these the only conclusion we can come to is that those individuals are not as well read about the topic as they claim to be. It's very disingenuous to complain about it, after it was so clearly pointed out by me several posts prior.
flic: [I]t's naive for you to expect them to try and explain 100-200 years worth of economic theory over an internet chat forum.
[I]t's naive for you to expect them to try and explain 100-200 years worth of economic theory over an internet chat forum.
Why? If somebody holds a position, shouldn't we expect them to be able to articulate it?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
flic,
so, since you ignored the fact that many austrians believe that the notion of market failure is meaningless in your summation of problems with the way i phrased my question, you must clearly be ignorant of that concept? that can be the only conclusion i can draw if that is how you want to "score" our responses. hopefully, instead, you will just admit your "guess what counter argument i'm thinking of" mental exercise is bs. it doesn't illustrate anything about my knowledge of ae. especially after i already pointed to another thread where i engaged in similar discussions on a related topic.
if you really wanted to claim that i don't understand austrian economics, then find mistakes i've made and point them out. that is really the most simple and direct way of illustrating your point.
if you don't think it is possible to actually correct someone's mistakes in economic reasoning on an internet forum, then i can only say you're doing something wrong.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Student:so, since you ignored the fact that many austrians believe that the notion of market failure is meaningless
Which Austrians believe otherwise?
I. Ryan:Why? If somebody holds a position, shouldn't we expect them to be able to articulate it?
Precisely. And when they articulate a position they call Austrian, when it clearly is not, then they have failed to meet that standard.
ls full quote:
so, since you ignored the fact that many austrians believe that the notion of market failure is meaningless
Student: ls full quote:
My bad. Corrected, thanks.
filc:Several people here are clearly raising points that run in direct conflict with several Austrian fundamental principles. Like the calculation problem overlooked above. These are fundamental, elementary Austrian positions. When ignoring these the only conclusion we can come to is that those individuals are not as well read about the topic as they claim to be. It's very disingenuous to complain about it, after it was so clearly pointed out by me several posts prior.
No one is claiming expertise here but the Austrians themselves.
Clearly, EconomistInTraining, as he said himself, was sharing "some thoughts" on the topic (e.g., socialist calculation) and wanted input from other thinkers. There was nothing subversive or combative in his intent or his delivery.
These discussions are opportunities to prove your superior knowledge (if that's your goal); you should not simply assume the other person is ill-informed and leave the debate at that.
Personally, I prefer civil discourse where all participants are presumed intelligent and ready to learn, all parties knowledgeable in some areas and needing more development in others.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Student:hopefully, instead, you will just admit your "guess what counter argument i'm thinking of" mental exercise is bs. it doesn't illustrate anything about my knowledge of ae. especially after i already pointed to another thread where i engaged in similar discussions on a related topic.
The thread speaks for itself. Contemplating that government intervention could even arguably be beneficial is to deny the Austrian position of praxeology, and calculation. Or if not to deny, then to proceed in ignorance of(whicH I assumed). Two extremely elementary Austrian concepts. If you don't understand why they are in conflict than I am sorry. I recommend reading up on the subject.
I disagree with I Ryan that it is my, or anyone elses, responsibility to attempt to teach you these complex subjects over an internet forum. I have to believe that at least part of that responsibility lies with you to do your homework. Again we aren't going to teach people 100 years worth of economic theory over a web forum. Disagreeing with someone and pretending to take the high road is just the easy way out.
When you make comments where principles are in direct conflict with Austrian fundamentals, your going to get called out.
Whats worse is you tried to escape out of it downplaying the significance of the calculation problem, and now your tryign to play it off as if it was some little game. It was a demonstration, one that succeeded in making a point.
Not surprisingly you see it differently, so I encourage you to agree to disagree.
Strangeloop:No one is claiming expertise here but the Austrians themselves.
When you engage in debate it's assumed that your explaining why your positions are more credible than your opponents. You are in effect assuming the roll of expert.
flic: I disagree with I Ryan that it is my, or anyone elses, responsibility to attempt to teach you these complex subjects over an internet forum. I have to believe that at least part of that responsibility lies with you to do your homework. Again we aren't going to teach people 100 years worth of economic theory over a web forum. Disagreeing with someone and pretending to take the high road is just the easy way out.
When did I say that it was your "responsibility" to teach him anything?
filc: Strangeloop:No one is claiming expertise here but the Austrians themselves. When you engage in debate it's assumed that your explaining why your positions are more credible than your opponents. You are in effect assuming the roll of expert. Sometimes I just want to bounce ideas around. Evidently, that's what EconomistInTraining wanted to do, as well. Form an idea, throw out there, and see how it holds up. "I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman | Post Points: 20
Sometimes I just want to bounce ideas around. Evidently, that's what EconomistInTraining wanted to do, as well. Form an idea, throw out there, and see how it holds up.
I. Ryan:When did I say that it was your "responsibility" to teach him anything?
Perhaps I misunderstood your point in a previous response. I withdraw the critique. Sorry about that.
filc:Contemplating that government intervention could even arguably be beneficial is to deny the Austrian position of praxeology, and calculation.
Hayek, an Austrian, advocated government intervention.
BOOYAH!
StrangeLoop:Sometimes I just want to bounce ideas around. Evidently, that's what EconomistInTraining wanted to do, as well. Form an idea, throw out there, and see how it holds up.
That seems credible to me. But you'll have to grow some skin and not take critique's of your idea's so personally. People are going to disagree with you. Especially if your intent is to "bounce ideas" on a public forum.
StrangeLoop:Hayek, an Austrian, advocated government intervention. BOOYAH!
I seriously question the motive behind this post?
My response is, so what? What does that have to do with calculation/praxeology?
If you want to open a thread where calculation and praxeology are not in conflict with intervention, then I encourage you to do so. But keep the petty posts otu of this. Your asking us to take you seriously, the whole "BooyaH" thing is not the way for it.