onebornfree: Mansoor H. Khan: Recently I participated in an internet online forum with a person who subscribes to the Austrian school of economics. He claimed that there is no additional incentive to hoard money in a deflationary environment as compared to a environment of stable prices. So I came up with this investment decision example to show him that there is in fact a strong additional incentive to hoard money.....Conclusion: Deflationary expectations raise the incentive to hoard money. Not that it matters [after all, in the long run we are all dead] but I believe you might be confusing cause with effect. A Definition: Deflation = Increasing Per Unit Purchasing Power As far as I am aware, the term "deflation" refers to an economic situation in which the general per unit value of the medium of exchange is increasing beyond previous levels relative to almost everything else [other goods, services] in production. [ie there is a steady increase in per unit purchasing power- less units now buy more goods/services than before]. [If you are using an entirely different definition then what follows below is probably irrellevant.] Final Per Unit Value = Final Outcome of Supply and Demand factors As LVM has shown, as with anything and everything else produced, at any point in time, the final purchasing power [ie price, or value] of a single unit of money is always the outcome of just two factors: [1] present supply of that unit, and [2] present demand for that unit. Therefor, in a deflationary environment , the present demand for the supply of the unit of currency exceeds the present supply,[ for whatever reasons] but likely including a general hoarding preference by the majority of the population. To put it another way, the desire by the majority of individuals to acquire and hold currency units [instead of spending them] is increased [ie there is an increased demand] to the point where that the total , present, collective demand outstrips the present supply of currency units. Example: the money supply is being increased above previous production levels , but the demand for that increased supply [for whatever reasons] is still greater than that increased supply - therefor, increased supply, plus even more demand that outstrips that increased supply causes the economic effect of an increase in per unit purchasing power ,a deflationary, or at the very least disinflationary,* scenario. Cause and Effect Therefor, the hoarding of money [ie an increase in the general desire to hold cash instead of spending it], is a cause of deflation [ie an increase in per unit purchasing power] - a factor involved in producing the economic effect usually called "deflation", not really a result of it.** Why a Deflation? The question then becomes: "what would cause a majority of people to change their behaviour and choose to hold onto more cash [causing deflation- or an increase in per unit purchasing power], instead of spending as freely as they have in the past?" Anyhoo, thats my twisted logic Regards, onebornfree. .*"Disinflation"= a decrease in the rate of inflation **Of course, once this hoarding behaviour is set in motion, that hoarding of money does become a self-fulfilling prophecy to an extent- up to an [undeterminable] point, money hoarding will encourage more hoarding. P.S. Regardless of how you and I define deflation, and regardless of what measures you envision that can/will prevent/discourage the hoarding of money and promote its supposedly beneficial free circulation instead, and regardless of who it is you envision as being in charge of carrying out those envisioned measures , those envisioned measures will ultimately fail, as the market finally corrects and adjusts to them, perhaps as viciously, or perhaps even more viciously, than it is doing right now in its response to certain, er, "measures" already taken.
Mansoor H. Khan: Recently I participated in an internet online forum with a person who subscribes to the Austrian school of economics. He claimed that there is no additional incentive to hoard money in a deflationary environment as compared to a environment of stable prices. So I came up with this investment decision example to show him that there is in fact a strong additional incentive to hoard money.....Conclusion: Deflationary expectations raise the incentive to hoard money.
Recently I participated in an internet online forum with a person who subscribes to the Austrian school of economics. He claimed that there is no additional incentive to hoard money in a deflationary environment as compared to a environment of stable prices. So I came up with this investment decision example to show him that there is in fact a strong additional incentive to hoard money.....Conclusion: Deflationary expectations raise the incentive to hoard money.
Not that it matters [after all, in the long run we are all dead] but I believe you might be confusing cause with effect.
A Definition: Deflation = Increasing Per Unit Purchasing Power
As far as I am aware, the term "deflation" refers to an economic situation in which the general per unit value of the medium of exchange is increasing beyond previous levels relative to almost everything else [other goods, services] in production. [ie there is a steady increase in per unit purchasing power- less units now buy more goods/services than before].
[If you are using an entirely different definition then what follows below is probably irrellevant.]
Final Per Unit Value = Final Outcome of Supply and Demand factors
As LVM has shown, as with anything and everything else produced, at any point in time, the final purchasing power [ie price, or value] of a single unit of money is always the outcome of just two factors: [1] present supply of that unit, and [2] present demand for that unit.
Therefor, in a deflationary environment , the present demand for the supply of the unit of currency exceeds the present supply,[ for whatever reasons] but likely including a general hoarding preference by the majority of the population.
To put it another way, the desire by the majority of individuals to acquire and hold currency units [instead of spending them] is increased [ie there is an increased demand] to the point where that the total , present, collective demand outstrips the present supply of currency units.
Example: the money supply is being increased above previous production levels , but the demand for that increased supply [for whatever reasons] is still greater than that increased supply - therefor, increased supply, plus even more demand that outstrips that increased supply causes the economic effect of an increase in per unit purchasing power ,a deflationary, or at the very least disinflationary,* scenario.
Cause and Effect
Therefor, the hoarding of money [ie an increase in the general desire to hold cash instead of spending it], is a cause of deflation [ie an increase in per unit purchasing power] - a factor involved in producing the economic effect usually called "deflation", not really a result of it.**
Why a Deflation?
The question then becomes: "what would cause a majority of people to change their behaviour and choose to hold onto more cash [causing deflation- or an increase in per unit purchasing power], instead of spending as freely as they have in the past?"
Anyhoo, thats my twisted logic
Regards, onebornfree.
.*"Disinflation"= a decrease in the rate of inflation
**Of course, once this hoarding behaviour is set in motion, that hoarding of money does become a self-fulfilling prophecy to an extent- up to an [undeterminable] point, money hoarding will encourage more hoarding.
P.S. Regardless of how you and I define deflation, and regardless of what measures you envision that can/will prevent/discourage the hoarding of money and promote its supposedly beneficial free circulation instead, and regardless of who it is you envision as being in charge of carrying out those envisioned measures , those envisioned measures will ultimately fail, as the market finally corrects and adjusts to them, perhaps as viciously, or perhaps even more viciously, than it is doing right now in its response to certain, er, "measures" already taken.
Ok. Guys. A blogger on UK Housing Crash website found the following flaw in my argument. He said:
"Does the cost of capital change this example significantly?Interest rates are lower in a deflationary environment so discount rate is also likely lower. Depending on the rates this could give equivalent payback periods"
So my conclusion is flawed at least per this example. "
The cost of capital won't be same in inflation and stable price scenarios most likely.
But this does not change my mind about the "paradox of thrift". Please see the following comment from another very smart blogger from the UK Housing crash website:
"the paradox of thrift is real.it arises because of wage and price rigidities in the economy. An economy has two sources of spending, consumption and investment.When an economy having no rigidities suffers a shock which causes a fall in investment, there is little change in overall output because consumption increases to compensate. This occurs because prices of money/debt and goods and wages automatically adjust to the lowered level of investment. In this kind of economy interest rates would be negative.However in the rigid economy, workers fight pay cuts, producers avoid dropping prices and debt holders won't accept haircuts. This leads firms to lay off workers and reduce output to maintain profits, and it leads to deflation in which the real rate of interest is very strongly positive even when the nominal rates is at or near 0. This strong real rate coupled with falling investment is a positive feedback loop from which it is very difficult to escape."
Mansoor
wilderness: Mansoor H. Khan:Look. I am learning that Austrian's whole way of thinking revolves around the belief that perceptions only matter. If that is the case what is motivation to run a website called mises.org and try to influence perceptions/opinions? If there is no objective truth then why discuss anything and why run a website called mises.org? If in fact there is truth then lets talk about it and stop playing verbal games. I'm not playing a verbal game. I asked a question in order to see if you will give a response to something that is meaningful. I'm trying, if you want to call it such, to do an exchange with you. I'm trying to come to an agreement, no matter how small, to build upon that agreeable foundation and then maybe we can develop further upon it. If I ask you this, what color is a red apple - how will you respond? Or how about this? You ask me a question. I'll give you a straight answer instead of jumping all around, deal? But give me a question as simplistic as the red apple example. Something you and I can both agree upon.
Mansoor H. Khan:Look. I am learning that Austrian's whole way of thinking revolves around the belief that perceptions only matter. If that is the case what is motivation to run a website called mises.org and try to influence perceptions/opinions? If there is no objective truth then why discuss anything and why run a website called mises.org? If in fact there is truth then lets talk about it and stop playing verbal games.
If there is no objective truth then why discuss anything and why run a website called mises.org? If in fact there is truth then lets talk about it and stop playing verbal games.
I'm not playing a verbal game. I asked a question in order to see if you will give a response to something that is meaningful. I'm trying, if you want to call it such, to do an exchange with you. I'm trying to come to an agreement, no matter how small, to build upon that agreeable foundation and then maybe we can develop further upon it. If I ask you this, what color is a red apple - how will you respond? Or how about this? You ask me a question. I'll give you a straight answer instead of jumping all around, deal? But give me a question as simplistic as the red apple example. Something you and I can both agree upon.
Ok. Maybe I got it. You guys do believe that object truth exists but I think you guys believe that the only way to know what that truth is via market prices in a completely free economy. No legal tender laws. No tax laws. etc.
Am now on the right track?
Mansoor H. Khan: wilderness: If I ask you this, what color is a red apple - how will you respond? Or how about this? You ask me a question. I'll give you a straight answer instead of jumping all around, deal? But give me a question as simplistic as the red apple example. Something you and I can both agree upon. Ok. Maybe I got it. You guys do believe that object truth exists but I think you guys believe that the only way to know what that truth is via market prices in a completely free economy. No legal tender laws. No tax laws. etc. Am now on the right track?
wilderness: If I ask you this, what color is a red apple - how will you respond? Or how about this? You ask me a question. I'll give you a straight answer instead of jumping all around, deal? But give me a question as simplistic as the red apple example. Something you and I can both agree upon.
If I ask you this, what color is a red apple - how will you respond? Or how about this? You ask me a question. I'll give you a straight answer instead of jumping all around, deal? But give me a question as simplistic as the red apple example. Something you and I can both agree upon.
Before I answer these questions, I know you don't know what I'm saying, because I really did have a request in my post. I'm trying to start on something extremely small and what might seem 'off-track' and has nothing to do with economics, etc.... Yet I think it does in the long run. It gets you and I starting off on the right foot. Gets you and I at least agreeing on something so we don't have to read too much into what the other person might be saying. I'm trying to avoid the guessing. I simply want to know. Is a red apple - red?
wilderness: Mansoor H. Khan: wilderness: If I ask you this, what color is a red apple - how will you respond? Or how about this? You ask me a question. I'll give you a straight answer instead of jumping all around, deal? But give me a question as simplistic as the red apple example. Something you and I can both agree upon. Ok. Maybe I got it. You guys do believe that object truth exists but I think you guys believe that the only way to know what that truth is via market prices in a completely free economy. No legal tender laws. No tax laws. etc. Am now on the right track? Before I answer these questions, I know you don't know what I'm saying, because I really did have a request in my post. I'm trying to start on something extremely small and what might seem 'off-track' and has nothing to do with economics, etc.... Yet I think it does in the long run. It gets you and I starting off on the right foot. Gets you and I at least agreeing on something so we don't have to read too much into what the other person might be saying. I'm trying to avoid the guessing. I simply want to know. Is a red apple - red?
Yes!
Mansoor H. Khan:Yes!
thank buddha, jesus, allah, my momma, and daddy! That's all I've been asking!
wilderness: Mansoor H. Khan:Yes! thank buddha, jesus, allah, my momma, and daddy! That's all I've been asking!
So what about my question.
Mansoor H. Khan:Ok. Maybe I got it. You guys do believe that object truth exists but I think you guys believe that the only way to know what that truth is via market prices in a completely free economy. No legal tender laws. No tax laws. etc. Am now on the right track?
yes. the reason is, and I'm far from having a decent economic insight as I've worked my way into this by starting out with learning logic, now I'm picking some economics mixed in with methodology and ontology, so... How I would answer the reason is because the economy can be known with legal tender laws, taxes, etc... but they distort prices and thereby makes the 'knowing' of the market vague and incomplete. There is already a limit of knowledge on understanding the market to begin with as humans are not omniscient. So already humans will not ever have the complete picture of the market. Add in these artificial and arbitrary injections into the market via regulations, etc... and it becomes that much harder.
Prices are signals of supply and demand. When prices are distorted, then supply and demand is distorted. It becomes more difficult to know what the supply and demand of any product should be in accord with consumer demand (which inversely deals with product supply). You've probably heard of how 'clarity needs to return to the market' or 'there is no clarity in the market', etc., etc, due to this gov't policy might be announced today so investors are being cautious, etc.... Or another one is 'investors are being cautious because the Fed. might lower or raise interest rates today so investors are not sure what to do', etc.... These all impact the market and long term regulations or artificial adjustments in the interest rates make the market even less clear. Does any of that sound familiar?
wilderness: Mansoor H. Khan:Ok. Maybe I got it. You guys do believe that object truth exists but I think you guys believe that the only way to know what that truth is via market prices in a completely free economy. No legal tender laws. No tax laws. etc. Am now on the right track? yes. the reason is, and I'm far from having a decent economic insight as I've worked my way into this by starting out with learning logic, now I'm picking some economics mixed in with methodology and ontology, so... How I would answer the reason is because the economy can be known with legal tender laws, taxes, etc... but they distort prices and thereby makes the 'knowing' of the market vague and incomplete. There is already a limit of knowledge on understanding the market to begin with as humans are not omniscient. So already humans will not ever have the complete picture of the market. Add in these artificial and arbitrary injections into the market via regulations, etc... and it becomes that much harder. Prices are signals of supply and demand. When prices are distorted, then supply and demand is distorted. It becomes more difficult to know what the supply and demand of any product should be in accord with consumer demand (which inversely deals with product supply). You've probably heard of how 'clarity needs to return to the market' or 'there is no clarity in the market', etc., etc, due to this gov't policy might be announced today so investors are being cautious, etc.... Or another one is 'investors are being cautious because the Fed. might lower or raise interest rates today so investors are not sure what to do', etc.... These all impact the market and long term regulations or artificial adjustments in the interest rates make the market even less clear. Does any of that sound familiar?
yes. I am with you so far. please Keep going?
wilderness: Andrew Cain: Mansoor H. Khan:I am learning that Austrian's whole way of thinking revolves around the belief that perceptions only matter. If that is the case what is motivation to run a website called mises.org and try to influence perceptions/opinions? People have subjective values concerning economic transactions or economic evaluations but that doesn't infer that the whole world is subjective and therefore nihilistic. One can believe in objective reality and subjective consumer preference. This
Andrew Cain: Mansoor H. Khan:I am learning that Austrian's whole way of thinking revolves around the belief that perceptions only matter. If that is the case what is motivation to run a website called mises.org and try to influence perceptions/opinions? People have subjective values concerning economic transactions or economic evaluations but that doesn't infer that the whole world is subjective and therefore nihilistic. One can believe in objective reality and subjective consumer preference.
Mansoor H. Khan:I am learning that Austrian's whole way of thinking revolves around the belief that perceptions only matter. If that is the case what is motivation to run a website called mises.org and try to influence perceptions/opinions?
People have subjective values concerning economic transactions or economic evaluations but that doesn't infer that the whole world is subjective and therefore nihilistic. One can believe in objective reality and subjective consumer preference.
This
ok. I read it. The essay talks about the state without defining it. Consider sixth century Arabia nestled between Roman and Persian Empires. Arabia was NOT invaded by the Roman empire or the Persion Empire. They considered it too lawless and too unruly to rule. The were organized in tribal form. Some tribes were more powerful than others. But they did not have an executive branch, a judicial branch or a legislative branch. And no taxation of course. Would you such a situation stateless?
z1235: Mansoor H. Khan: You'r implying that there is no such thing as value and only perceptions of value. What I am saying is if economic actors don't on average act according to reality you will have disaster? What is value then , if not subjective value? Can a loaf of bread "actually" cost 3000 if there's no one willing to pay more than 1200 for it? I think this is the root of your problem. A loaf of bread in year 3 is still, like always, SUBJECTIVELY valued by people who need it relative to other goods, and not by starting with a year 0 price of 1200 and deflating it by 5% for two consecutive years. You (like Keynes) keep thinking in aggregates. Aggregate deflation and inflation are only calculated as smokescreens in a world of central banking and monopoly money. In a free market, gold deflation simply means loaves inflation -- the value of each unit of good/service (pound of nails, oz of gold, loaf of bread, hour of massage) fluctuates in relation to the rest, thus inflation in X is, by definition, deflation in Y. In a free market, it is the SUBJECTIVE preferences of economic actors that create the REALITY of relative prices of goods and services (How many hours of massage for a loaf of bread?). Hence, by definition, the free market IS reality. Now, if you introduce an entity that coerces all actors to use its fiat paper as the only legal tender, then goes ahead and manipulates its supply at will, THEN you need to start worrying about prices of things fluctuating way above and below "reality". But you call this desirable, for some reason. Z.
Mansoor H. Khan: You'r implying that there is no such thing as value and only perceptions of value. What I am saying is if economic actors don't on average act according to reality you will have disaster?
You'r implying that there is no such thing as value and only perceptions of value.
What I am saying is if economic actors don't on average act according to reality you will have disaster?
What is value then , if not subjective value? Can a loaf of bread "actually" cost 3000 if there's no one willing to pay more than 1200 for it?
I think this is the root of your problem. A loaf of bread in year 3 is still, like always, SUBJECTIVELY valued by people who need it relative to other goods, and not by starting with a year 0 price of 1200 and deflating it by 5% for two consecutive years. You (like Keynes) keep thinking in aggregates.
Aggregate deflation and inflation are only calculated as smokescreens in a world of central banking and monopoly money. In a free market, gold deflation simply means loaves inflation -- the value of each unit of good/service (pound of nails, oz of gold, loaf of bread, hour of massage) fluctuates in relation to the rest, thus inflation in X is, by definition, deflation in Y.
In a free market, it is the SUBJECTIVE preferences of economic actors that create the REALITY of relative prices of goods and services (How many hours of massage for a loaf of bread?). Hence, by definition, the free market IS reality.
Now, if you introduce an entity that coerces all actors to use its fiat paper as the only legal tender, then goes ahead and manipulates its supply at will, THEN you need to start worrying about prices of things fluctuating way above and below "reality". But you call this desirable, for some reason.
Z.
Ok. So "the free market IS reality". Then you must clearly define free market for me. since you are telling me that is how I will "know" reality.
Mansoor H. Khan:yes. I am with you so far. please Keep going?
Other than that, without any specifics, I would suggest this book. This is a large field of knowledge to get into, there are lots of books, and I've only just begun to get into the detailed aspect of economics in general. The Austrian field is cognizant that to know of empirical data it takes thought. And that thought, the knowing what the data/facts are, takes a theory. It's scientific since it has its roots in realism, meaning, the world is real and it can be known by human reason.
The philosophy that goes hand in hand with the economics traces its roots back to Aristotle, Richard Cantillon, Carl Menger, Mises, and Rothbard, etc... and that's only to name a handful as there are more each with their unique contributions. There's a large part of this that deals with history, there's theory, and then when a person has a good handle on that, then knowing what the everyday market data is becomes that much easier in light of the day-to-day exchanges in the free market. Since it's based on human action, ie. praxeology, then it's based on the reality of humans acting in the world. That means it's not only about humans but about the reality in which humans participate in, ie. the world.
P.S. and non-sequitur means [if nobody got back to you] that a person's conclusion doesn't follow from their premise. Meaning what the person is logically starting from, the first sentence so to speak, that sentence and what it means, doesn't logically come to the conclusion that the person is saying. And a person doesn't say somebody has provided a non-sequitur simply because they think it doesn't make sense. If the person who has announced 'non-sequitur' really knows what they are talking about, then they can show the person step by step how what they said initially will does not eventually lead to such and such a conclusion. If the philosophic attacker says, 'non-sequitur', and the philosophic maintainer doesn't think there is a 'non-sequitur', then they can ask the attacker to point out why it is a 'non-sequitur'. If the attacker can't, then they don't know what they are talking about and they are simply saying stuff to throw the maintainer off because if they say 'non-sequitur', then the attacker has to be able to show step-by-step why the conclusion does not follow from the premise, especially, if the maintainer doesn't see what the attacker is declaring, so, the maintainer can ask the attacker to point out why it is a non-sequitur.
P.S.S. The first law of logic is called the law of identity which can be symbolically shown like this: A=A or A is A. A is not B (that would be a logical contradiction or in other words it would be illogical as A can't be B because A is A) Here's a good article to get you started on this.
My your travels be well. There is lots to learn! And I hope I was able to help.
Mansoor H. Khan: wilderness: Andrew Cain: Mansoor H. Khan:I am learning that Austrian's whole way of thinking revolves around the belief that perceptions only matter. If that is the case what is motivation to run a website called mises.org and try to influence perceptions/opinions? People have subjective values concerning economic transactions or economic evaluations but that doesn't infer that the whole world is subjective and therefore nihilistic. One can believe in objective reality and subjective consumer preference. This ok. I read it. The essay talks about the state without defining it. Consider sixth century Arabia nestled between Roman and Persian Empires. Arabia was NOT invaded by the Roman empire or the Persion Empire. They considered it too lawless and too unruly to rule. The were organized in tribal form. Some tribes were more powerful than others. But they did not have an executive branch, a judicial branch or a legislative branch. And no taxation of course. Would you such a situation stateless? Mansoor
You may have that article linked above confused with another article. Cause this article here I linked provides a little historical background on economics and explains human action, etc... The title of the paper in the link I gave above is:
Menger’s Austrian Aristotelianism: The Link Between Misesian Praxeology And the Philosophy of Human Flourishing
wilderness: Mansoor H. Khan:yes. I am with you so far. please Keep going? Other than that, without any specifics, I would suggest this book. This is a large field of knowledge to get into, there are lots of books, and I've only just begun to get into the detailed aspect of economics in general. The Austrian field is cognizant that to know of empirical data it takes thought. And that thought, the knowing what the data/facts are, takes a theory. It's scientific since it has its roots in realism, meaning, the world is real and it can be known by human reason. The philosophy that goes hand in hand with the economics traces its roots back to Aristotle, Richard Cantillon, Carl Menger, Mises, and Rothbard, etc... and that's only to name a handful as there are more each with their unique contributions. There's a large part of this that deals with history, there's theory, and then when a person has a good handle on that, then knowing what the everyday market data is becomes that much easier in light of the day-to-day exchanges in the free market. Since it's based on human action, ie. praxeology, then it's based on the reality of humans acting in the world. That means it's not only about humans but about the reality in which humans participate in, ie. the world. P.S. and non-sequitur means, if nobody got back to you, that a person's conclusion doesn't follow from their premise. Meaning what the person is logically starting from, the first sentence so to speak, that sentence and what it means, doesn't logically come to the conclusion that the person is saying. And a person doesn't say somebody has provided a non-sequitur simply because they think it doesn't make sense. If the person who has announced 'non-sequitur' really knows what they are talking about, then they can show the person step by step how what they said initially will eventually lead to such and such a conclusion. If the philosophic attacker says, 'non-sequitur', and the philosophic maintainer doesn't think there is a 'non-sequitur', then they can ask the attack to point out why it is a 'non-sequitur'. If they can't, then they don't know what they are talking about and they are simply saying stuff to throw the person off because if they say 'non-sequitur', then they have to be able to show step-by-step why it is, especially, if the maintain doesn't see it so asks the attacker to point out why it is a non-sequitur. P.S.S. The first law of logic is called the law of identity which can be symbolically shown like this: A=A or A is A. A is not B (that would be a logical contradiction or in other words it would be illogical as A can't be B because A is A) Here's a good article to get you started on this. My your travels be well. There is lots to learn! And I hope I was able to help.
P.S. and non-sequitur means, if nobody got back to you, that a person's conclusion doesn't follow from their premise. Meaning what the person is logically starting from, the first sentence so to speak, that sentence and what it means, doesn't logically come to the conclusion that the person is saying. And a person doesn't say somebody has provided a non-sequitur simply because they think it doesn't make sense. If the person who has announced 'non-sequitur' really knows what they are talking about, then they can show the person step by step how what they said initially will eventually lead to such and such a conclusion. If the philosophic attacker says, 'non-sequitur', and the philosophic maintainer doesn't think there is a 'non-sequitur', then they can ask the attack to point out why it is a 'non-sequitur'. If they can't, then they don't know what they are talking about and they are simply saying stuff to throw the person off because if they say 'non-sequitur', then they have to be able to show step-by-step why it is, especially, if the maintain doesn't see it so asks the attacker to point out why it is a non-sequitur.
Ok thanks. I will study these.
Mansoor H. Khan:Ok. good. we are getting somewhere. What happens if consumer preferences are NOT in line with objective reality? Do you see an issue there?
How can it not be?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew Cain: Mansoor H. Khan:Ok. good. we are getting somewhere. What happens if consumer preferences are NOT in line with objective reality? Do you see an issue there? How can it not be?
Ok. If we truly had much more an capness in our society yes deviation from objective reality is likely to be corrected before civilization goes too far down the wrong path. But keeping an capness means giving up modern conveniences and a technologically advanced and organizationally advanced society which able to do big big big things.
so in a nutshell Austrian's God = Objective Reality As Expressed in Prices in non-manipulated markets of an Ann Cap Society.
Did I get it right? I do like the fact that you believe object reality exists. When you guys were talking about perceptions so much I almost lost interest in continuing the dalogue.
Mansoor H. Khan:But keeping an capness means giving up modern conveniences and a technologically advanced and organizationally advanced society which able to do big big big things.
Why does it mean that?
Mansoor H. Khan:so in a nutshell Austrian's God = Objective Reality As Expressed in Prices in non-manipulated markets of an Ann Cap Society
Well what do you mean by objective reality? I see objective reality as more of a philosophical point rather then an economical one.
Mansoor H. Khan:Did I get it right? I do like the fact that you believe object reality exists. When you guys were talking about perceptions so much I almost lost interest in continuing the dalogue.
Well your mixing philosophy with economics. Whether or not there is an objective reality is not something economics can explain. It merely seeks to explain the rational behind transactions of goods or services.