-
They don't have to be constant, they just have to change slowly enough to make statements with reasonable surety. For instance, the best indicator, believe it or not, of how busy a restaurant is going to be tomorrow is how busy it was on that exact same day last year . Hmm, you might have a point. I'll have to think that over. One of the things
-
Jon: The point of economies is to fulfill the wants of their participants. This provides a ready "yardstick" by which to compare them, i.e. economic efficiency. But I do not object to the usage of the speak of systems for that reason, but rather because you are in so doing conflating the market with a single owner of capital goods, on par
-
filc : Your hope is to find a flaw in a person(s) argumentation as a means to refute Mises and/or praxeology. As opposed to standing up to the theory itself you attack the argumentative abilities of individuals who represent it. But if I ignored my opponents actual arguments then I'd be accused of strawmanning them. What could I do that would be
-
Anenome: It doesn't actually matter, actually. Because if the producer is incorrect, he will quickly realize this fact or be forced in short order to go out of business. By virtue of losing money he will be unable to bid up the price of that good anymore. That would true regardless of where his income is coming from. If he is funneling his profits
-
I accidentally linked the wrong page, and for some reason you can't edit your posts in permanent threads. If you go to the first page , you'll see that I addressed other aspects of praxeology. What is meant by refuting AE? Presumably the same thing that is meant by the Permanent Keynesian Refutation Thread, except in regards to AE instead of
-
z : And the sellers have no say in the matter? I would assume from Mises's perspective that the sellers of productive goods would value them in the same way that buyers do--that is, based on the expected prices of consumers goods that they can produce with them. So my point remains. The price of productive goods is based on the expectations of entrepreneurs
-
Anemone : Entrepreneurs do not set prices. This is one of the great economic fallacies prevalent in the general public's mind. Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand, and there are many considerations surrounding that assertion. But one thing you could never say is that price is determined by the entrepreneur. What is determined
-
Jon: It isn't a "system". It isn't a single isolated organisation. It is the sum total of all owners of capital goods competing for ownership of said resources, bidding for them. These individuals and organisations are comparing their performance and valuations against each other, and that is what allows them to calculate. This means
-
Buyers (entrepreneurs) "determine" the prices of the (production) goods they are buying? How exactly do they do this? By bidding on them. What exactly is confusing you about this? Nothing. You mean what is wrong about it? What exactly would the "central planners" be making guesses about? Whether consumers prefer x to z.
-
Anenome: But it's probable that if the price of that thing is rising, it's because another producer has found a use for that good for which people are willing to pay much more. Thus, the first producer stops using that good if its price rises too high because the second producer has found a more efficient use of that good, and the means of that