#1:
If the purpose of someone determines how something is going to be used, then if the purposes of many people are the same with regard to how something is going to be used, then that thing will be used the sameway by many.
But both Austrians and Mainstream economists want to know economics but they don't work together. The fact that they don't is a contradiction that could ruin the above statement. So therefore the purposes of people sometimes doesn't affect how an economy is.
#2
If the free market developes spontaneous order without planning, then this order is seemingly accidental and has nothing to do with the purposes of the individuals composing it. So unless the market by definition developes spontaneous order, the market must be considered extraneous to wealth creation or social peace.
#1 seems to be saying something like this: If Country A wants to reach the moon and builds a space ship for that purpose, and Country B wants to acheive the same end by training people to jump really high, then the purposes of people don't really affect how an economy is. Non sequitor, hey?
#2 First sentence seems to be saying something like this: if people are freely allowed to make things that others want [because that's how you make a profit, by giving people what they want], then the needs of others are not relevant to what people will make. An absurdity here.
I don't get the second sentence at all.
P.S. are you the person who wanted to know about logic?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Wat.
First off lemme get this straight at this sentence kinda confused me:
If Bob wants to eat, he has an apple, and knows that apples are good for eating, then he will eat it. If a lot of people are in the same situation and have the same desire, then they will all do the same thing. Don't really see anything objectionable there.
Once again, kinda confusing statement. Off topic but these communication errors are exactly why mathematics uses well-defined concepts instead of commonly-used words to explain things. It'd be helpful if praxeology had some sort of normalized standard.
So lemme see if I've got this straight: Austrians want to understand economics, and Mainstreamers want to understand economics. Therefore they should be doing the same thing. However they aren't, so this disproves the above premise.
You forget what makes a good is the actor's mind, and only indirectly the properties of the thing itself. Austrians and Mainstreamers both have the same goal. However, they disagree as to what means can accomplish it, and each thinks the other's method will actually harm their advancement of it.
To give an analogy, imagine that everyone in a group wants to eat, and has an apple. From this it doesn't follow they all agree that apples can be used for eating: It's possible most of the people will think that apples are poison and will attempt to eat rocks instead.
Once again, very unclear language. The market is, by definition, the voluntary associations of individuals.
Yeah I'm the same guy who wanted to know about logic -what don't tell me I messed up again!?
Well, in all seriousness your probably right about the non sequitor but I think it's mainly my bad communication. Here's a better way of putting #1
Given that everyone who has the same purpose does the same stuff
Then why is it that some people (Austrians) who have the same purpose as others (neoclassicals) don't do the same things (practice econ. the same)?
So you interpreted the first one right so I suppose I was using an incorrect analogy?
As for the second one -something is called accidental when it doesn't completely follow from what something is. So I was wondering, if the market is just voluntary association, then it can be any type of voluntary association even tribal so wealth creation is just accidental to the market. But here I think I just reached a contradiction which defeats this argument since if the market can be anything then it can be this particular thing and since a wealthy society is just this type of instance, then it cannot be considered as having nothing to do with what the market is.
Technically this applies to every association though the term "market" is usually only used to apply to trade. A voluntary association has to be profitable (in the sense of utility) for every party involved, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Thus, voluntary associations build more wealth by definition.
Some associations are more profitable than others, and external forces to the market can reduce wealth. How and why the former is not done and the latter happens is a matter of economic history, not of economics itself.
Well Azure, that defeats question #2 but I am still waiting for some help on number 1. I suppose that it was a bad analogy on my part but I still think there is something to it that may need to be discussed more.
For instance it might be a problem where the theory of economics is ahead of the facts of history. So for instance, just because a particular market hasn't reached the plain state of rest, doesn't mean that it won't reach the plain state of rest. But using this as an analogue of question 1, isn't there something plainly wrong with saying that markets reach the plain state of rest and also holding that for this particular market, it has not reached the plain state of rest? I suppose one would have to say that after a certain time, or when certain preferences occur, a plain state of rest would occur; and similarly in question 1 I suppose one would have to say that after a certain time or after a certain willing then and only then would everyone cooperate.
Any help would be appreciated.
You sound a bit confused. Allow me to guess at what your terms mean:
By the "plain state of rest" you mean either:
A. Where all of everyone's wants are satisfied. A system like this no longer obeys the laws of praxeology, as something which does not want cannot purposefully act.
B. The conditions of the evenly rotating economy. This can never be achieved because changes in consumption patterns always outpace changes in production patterns.
dang, should've consulted a glossary I meant by plain state of rest, the condition where everyone goes to exchange and then stops exchanging since they are satisfied as opposed to a final state of rest where the whole economy is without possibility of change because it has reached a perfectly satisfactory position.
Like I said. Production patterns always change after consumer preferences do. The "plain state of rest" is only possible if consumer preferences stop changing.
Given that everyone who has the same purpose does the same stuff Then why is it that some people (Austrians) who have the same purpose as others (neoclassicals) don't do the same things (practice econ. the same)?
Because not everybody who has the same purpose does the same stuff. People can have different opinions on how to reach the same goal.
And Austrians and neoclassicals dont have the same purpose.
Correct me if I'm not getting your point, but I think you mean to concur with me in agreeing that in order for the plain state of rest to be established, narrow parameters are needed and so similiarly in order for there to be any truth or at least consistency in the idea of "having-a-common-purpose-and-acting-commonly", there must also be narrower parameters?
Either that or, since I could be wrong, it may be that your disagreeing with me on the possibility of the plain state of rest. I think to disagree with that concept would be to take the action axiom too boldly since the axiom itself doesn't preclude the possibility of a temporary state of rest (i.e. the plain state) which vanishes once new needs arise.
Alright, maybe people do have different opinions on how to reach the same goal but to me economics is about emphasizing the outcome of free markets. To say that people have different opinions on how to reach something is like saying that people have don't have enough food or shelter -the free market outcome is that people begin to have more food or shelter than they had before; likewise the market outcome is that people begin to share the same opinion if that opinion is maximizes their utility (taken in the austrian sense).
So there at least exists a tendency towards unifying their opinions.
Is it true that Austrians and neoclassicals don't have the same purpose?
me response to #1 and #2:
what?!
It is very possible for men to choose the wrong means to attain their goals. In fact, it happens very often, and as a result human history is largely a chronicle of error and frustration.
But this is no contradiction of catallitics.