Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Search

  • Re: Mises and Bernanke

    This post by Graham Summers at Phoenix Capital Research illustrates the point I'm trying to make: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-12-12/and-thats-checkmate-bernanke Summers writes: In simple terms, QE fails to generate economic growth or jobs . End of story. The BoE spent 20% of the UK’s GDP on QE (a truly staggering amount) and
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Thu, Dec 13 2012
  • Re: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited

    Jargon: Here is the passage from Hayek: "From the fact that whenever we interpret human action as in any sense purposive or meaningful, whether we do so in ordinary life or for the purposes of the social sciences, we have to define both the objects of human activity and the different kinds of actions themselves, not in physical terms but in terms
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Wed, Nov 28 2012
  • Re: The Critique of Praxeology from the Point of View of Natural Science

    The following argument is still in development and may be adjusted if or re-stated it if necessary. ******* The stated goal is to describe a conscious state in physical terms. Here are the parameters and definitions: 1) We assume that a scientific observer can, in principle at least, locate various conscious states among the various objects of nature
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Sun, Nov 25 2012
  • Re: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited

    Jargon: One more thing: "I was under the impression that you were making the case that Hayek's criticism of praxeology not applying to interpersonal exchange could be resolved by somehow stating that market actors, in buying a good, observe the market, thus bridging the gap from one actor to one social institution, ultimately composed of other
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Wed, Nov 21 2012
  • Re: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited

    "Why do we care what the social scientists actions are and how does that pertain to economics?" "I was under the impression that you were making the case that Hayek's criticism of praxeology not applying to interpersonal exchange could be resolved by somehow stating that market actors, in buying a good, observe the market, thus bridging
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Wed, Nov 21 2012
  • Re: The Critique of Praxeology from the Point of View of Natural Science

    "At any rate, all I can say in reaction is that we have no other reasonable course but to act as though the evidence of our experience is true," The argument isn't about practical action. It is a question of the most suitable theoretical method for describing the relationship between the phenomena. "There just isn’t a meaningful
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Tue, Nov 20 2012
  • Re: The Critique of Praxeology from the Point of View of Natural Science

    Clayton: What would not be physical would be: "...unobservables whose unobservability is a matter of epistemological principle." (Human Action) That is, an action category of unobservability, which means, things we refer to in action but do not observe. (the future, other minds, concepts, the other side of things, etc.) In other words, this
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Tue, Nov 20 2012
  • Re: The Critique of Praxeology from the Point of View of Natural Science

    "...whether the subjective experience of purposive choice is illusory or not, it is the only way man may experience life. As such, any theories of human action must still start from this point, must they not?" I believe the question is the scientific status or scientific validity of the particular theoretical description of the subjective
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Tue, Nov 20 2012
  • Re: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited

    Jargon: OK I think you're not totally understanding the argument. Hayek asserts two things: 1) Market study cannot be a priori 2) If we assume that X is the object of an actor's action, we may analytically conclude Y , and this is a priori analysis. Hayek agrees that there is a priori analysis of individual action, in which X and Y must necessarily
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Tue, Nov 20 2012
  • Re: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited

    "So, in reference to your earlier point, does not the notion of actor A engaging the market, as his action, also fail to necessitate a responsive action in actor B?" The argument is not that from the assumption of X, anything can be deduced. The argument is that from the assumption of X, something can be deduced.
    Posted to Economics Questions (Forum) by Adam Knott on Tue, Nov 20 2012
Page 6 of 63 (630 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last » | More Search Options