" And the reason why I made that conversion is important. Libertarian insights in a lot of ways are basic, Econ 101 insights about the efficiency of free contracting writ large and converted into norms or political values. In other words, I think one of the most essential libertarian fallacies is building a politico-ethical system around positive social science findings (and, I want to stress, basic and introductory social science findings at that). It's kind of an odd way of going about formulating a politico-ethical system. We don't adopt Nietzschean super-man ethics because of evolutionary biology, and we shouldn't simply adopt libertarianism because of these insights. I want to be clear - my point is not that you have to mix up normative and positive findings to come to libertarianism. My point is only that it's possible to get everything there is to get out of libertarianism simply by improving people's knowledge of social science. This is only to say that it's not entirely clear to me what should be important here: teaching people more social science, or sharing libertarianism. But even that isn't entirely satisfying - after all, the reason why I abandoned libertarianism was because I kept learning social science. Yes, the market is efficient and the price mechanism leverages decentralized knowledge. But if institutions don't or can't internalize costs and benefits social scientific insights start to militate against the efficiency of markets. Uncertainty and imperfections ensure that market forces, as fantastic as they are, are going to remain sub-optimal. I haven't abandoned any of the introductory insights in adopting these views - the complement the introductory insights that I still use. I still have a relatively contractarian view of human relations. I still take a fairly atomized, individualist view of things. I still come down on Hayek and Mises's side of the socialist calculation debate. But I can't call myself a libertarian. So, if what we really want is to get people to take the implications of social science more seriously, then its not clear that that would move people towards libertarianism either." -Daniel Kuehn
I think this is an interesting insight, though I find issue with it for this reason: Did Rothbard not "keep learning social science"? What about Walter Block, or other career Austro/Libertarians? Is there an implication that in order to maintain Libertarianism, we must stop at elementary observations? I'm sure DK can clarify if he wishes, and I hope he does. Anyway, thoughts?
"The question isn't whether people prefer homes, it is in a world of scarcity, how much home, and how much they prefer it determines how the structure of production should be organized."
This exactly. For example, in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan there was talk about requiring buildings to be earthquake proof. How earthquake "proof" should they make them? How much will it cost? Will it be more expensive than just rebuilding cheaper structures after another earthquake, that is if another one strong enough even comes along anytime soon? Etc. etc.
Daniel Kuehn:Sorry to be dense - I don't understand why [the word "optimality" typically implies objectivity to you].
It might just be me. When I see the word "optimality" or "optimal" being used, I initially assume the person is using it to refer to "the best" of something.
Daniel Kuehn:Do you think individual-level subjectivity somehow conflicts with the idea that individuals pursue (if not succeed in obtaining) some sort of point of optimality? What in optimality implies objectivity?
There's no logical reason why the word "optimality" must imply objectivity, and that's not what I meant. As far as your question goes, it depends on whether the "optimality" you're referring to is acknowledged to be entirely within the individual's mind.
Daniel Kuehn:Again, I think there's a tendency in the Austrian community to take things like mainstream quantifcation for modeling and mainstream intersubjective comparisons and consider all that stuff suspicious. I understand we probably disagree on that. But those are completely separate issues from the question of subjectivism itself.
I still fail to see how they are so.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Daniel Kuehn:Of course - I would have thought "constrained optimization" is implied by "optimization". I don't know of any economists that talk about unconstrained optimization - do you?
I honestly don't know. I seem to see plenty of non-Austrian economists use words like "optimal", "optimality", and "optimization", but they never seem to fully explain what they mean by those words. Then again, I readily admit that they may have done so and I simply haven't seen where they've done it.
In any case, I appreciate your clarification about what you mean by "optimality". It seems to me that there's really no difference between what you call "individual seeking of optimality" and what Austrian economists call "individual seeking of states of affairs that are more preferable to him over those that are less preferable to him".
Daniel Kuehn: re: "Second, why are you willing to adopt inter-subjective comparisons?" Reasonableness and tractability.
re: "Second, why are you willing to adopt inter-subjective comparisons?"
Reasonableness and tractability.
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you mean by either of those two words. Again, this seems like an appeal to some sort of objective value schema - at least, on first glance.
Daniel Kuehn:If we ever got to the point of measuring utility, this proposition would obviously be much dicier. Utils would have to be measured in units of dopamine I imagine. But as long as we're predicting and testing the behavior of people who maximize their own utility by setting a marginal change in their utility equal to price, whether that utility has to be scaled for actual inter-personal comparisons is largely irrelevant. To put it simply - inter-subjective comparisons are appropriate because we never attempt actual intersubjective comparisons. We never say "Person X gets 10 more utils than person Y". We don't care about those questions. So the use of marginal utiliy using a common measure of utility is completely inconsequential. If we did make those direct comparisons I'd tend to agree with you - but we don't. Why are you unwilling to use it?
First, let me ask you this: why do you want to measure utility in cardinal terms, regardless of whether units of dopamine* of some other measurement schema is being used? The best answer I've seen thus far is "Because it makes the math easier/more interesting" - but keep in mind that Austrians don't care about the math.
Second, what do you think is the point of predicting and testing the behavior of people, whether they maximize their own utility or not?
Third, I take your phrase "inter-subjective comparisons are appropriate because we never attempt actual intersubjective comparisons" to mean the same thing as "inter-subjective comparisons are appropriate because inter-subjective comparisons are not appropriate". In other words, it seems like a complete contradiction to me. Is there a flaw in my reasoning here?
Fourth and finally, if "the use of marginal utility using a common measure of utility is completely inconsequential", why is it done? I simply don't understand.
Daniel Kuehn: re: "Third, I really don't see how those things are a sideshow. Can you please clarify?" Because whether you accept quantification or inter-subjective comparison or not, no one is abandoning subjective value theory.
re: "Third, I really don't see how those things are a sideshow. Can you please clarify?"
Because whether you accept quantification or inter-subjective comparison or not, no one is abandoning subjective value theory.
I think that remains to be seen. What then is the point of quantification and inter-subjective comparison?
Daniel Kuehn:Sorry to be dense - I don't understand why [the word "optimality" typically implies objectivity to you]. It might just be me. When I see the word "optimality" or "optimal" being used, I initially assume the person is using it to refer to "the best" of something.
Well sure. Then perhaps the question ought to be "why does the word 'best' imply objectivity to you?". You can identify what is "best" according to your subjective preferences, can't you?
re: "I honestly don't know. I seem to see plenty of non-Austrian economists use words like "optimal", "optimality", and "optimization", but they never seem to fully explain what they mean by those words."
"Optimization" is always a reference to constrained optimization. I think it's left unsaid because it's implied.
re: "It seems to me that there's really no difference between what you call "individual seeking of optimality" and what Austrian economists call "individual seeking of states of affairs that are more preferable to him over those that are less preferable to him"."
I strongly agree with you on this. I understand you all don't like to use math, but I've thought for a long time that the math and your logical claims say the same thing. All a constrained optimization problem says is "the agent will continue to do something as long as the additional utility of doing that thing exceeds the additional disutility of doing that thing". That's always sounded to me like the sort of claim you all make.
re: "but keep in mind that Austrians don't care about the math"
I'm aware - but understand when you ask me what I think about things, I don't decide what I think with reference to what Austrians or anyone else cares about.
re: "In other words, it seems like a complete contradiction to me. Is there a flaw in my reasoning here?"
What I mean is this - no one ever goes out and tries to measure how much utility two people get from something and compare them. That use of intersubjective comparisons would be inappropriate. However, if we only use intersubjective comparisons to do some marginal analysis to derive a result that you agreed above is essentially the same as yours, why shouldn't we?
re: "Fourth and finally, if "the use of marginal utility using a common measure of utility is completely inconsequential", why is it done? I simply don't understand."
Because you can derive considerably more reasonable hypotheses to test than Austrians can.
re: "I think that remains to be seen. What then is the point of quantification and inter-subjective comparison?"
1. No, it does not "remain to be seen". The subjectivity thing you all worry so much about is a dead issue. Every economist is a subjectivist and it baffles me that this point even caught on with you guys.
2. See above for the point.
liberty student wrote:
lol, you were warned. My legend grows.
I did not want to mention it, but there is actually an entire forum somewhere - AN ENTIRE FORUM - for people who complain about being banned from Mises.Org forums!
And do you know what 80% of discussions there involve?
Yes, the legend that is liberty student. Pretty much everyone in that forum complains about you not giving them enough concessions. Which amounts to bullying in their eyes. (The rest 20% involves complaining about how only "privileged white people" post on Mises forums, which makes sense, since I am South Asian and you are part Asian)
I only found out about that particular forum, because at Daniel's blog, somebody from that forum had posted a link to it, "warning" Daniel about...well...you.
That is so epic. I do wish my fan club had more winners in it, but I guess I have to start somewhere.
This seems odd liberty student. Why do you like it that people think those things of you? Why do you like the fact that they feel the need to warn people about the way you interact with others? That doesn't appear to me to be a good thing.
Prateek, as a public service, could you provide the link to the banned from Mises forum? Or to Daniel's blog, at least?
As for LS and his antics, if you watch Peter Schiff videos, he has to deal with much worse. I learned a lot from watching how he does it, which is basically ignoring the personal side, and addressing the issues.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Daniel's blog is http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Smiling Dave:Prateek, as a public service, could you provide the link to the banned from Mises forum? Or to Daniel's blog, at least?
I almost hate to admit this, I haven't banned a member in god knows how long, as I mostly handle stopping spam attacks and basic user account help.
That forum of people angry at me, should actually be angry at other folks, because I simply don't work in the department that grinds their gears. Mind you, if they hate my posts, good for them. I would be disappointed if that group liked them.
Strangeloop, I deleted your second to last post which was just a personal shot at me. That's the second time you've had posts deleted this week for inappropriate content. You're at risk of losing your membership here if you continue to flaunt Daniel's rules.
Daniel Kuehn:This seems odd liberty student. Why do you like it that people think those things of you?
Because my esteeem isn't dependent on earning the approval of the other monkeys in the jungle. Why should anyone care what random strangers think of them?
Daniel Kuehn:Why do you like the fact that they feel the need to warn people about the way you interact with others?
I don't sit around obsessing about people on this forum, let alone off this forum. When I am not here, I hang out with people I like and do things I really enjoy. I don't sit around thinking about SmilingDave or Strangeloop.
If anything, I feel badly for those people who obsesses about the Mises forums or me. They sound like jilted girlfriends or something. I am a big fan of living well, and unfortunately for them, I don't even care to know who they are, let alone what they think of me, while they sit around all the time, talking about and presumably stalking me.
Daniel Kuehn:That doesn't appear to me to be a good thing.
To each their own.
It says something that people are playing this up.
TY Lagrange. Fortunately, perhaps, the link to the banned by Mises forum is buried deeply in there. Haven't the energy to look for it.