Economics Questions

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

krazy kaju — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:30:11 GMT

Ricky James:
I find Hayek roundabout

LOL!

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:55:44 GMT

BTW, there is not a binary set of options in "natural rights" and "consequentialism".

This is true.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:47:14 GMT

I haven't read Hayek, except something about intellectuals. However, I heard Hoppe refer to Hayek's contribution as "Hayek's so-called contribution". His criticism: the information problem is superfluous, whereas the information is by definition not available in the absence of genuine market prices.

BTW, there is not a binary set of options in "natural rights" and "consequentialism".

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

Esuric — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:26:07 GMT

I don't think I agree with you about Hayek being inferior.

Hayek makes a far broader argument regarding the role of prices in the formation of entrepreneurial expectations and decision making. While Mises focuses on profit/loss accounting which provides feedback loops regarding the correctness of entrepreneurial decisions, Hayek focuses on how such decisions are formed, and how they coordinate economic activity (the fact that prices guide production). He focuses on how prices reflect and convey tacit and idiosyncratic knowledge (as opposed to scientific knowledge), which is dispersed amongst billions of individuals, and which can't be formally expressed. His coordination argument, and Mises' calculation argument, are merely two sides of the same coin; they are interrelated.

Hayek, in many cases, merely takes Mises' ideas and expands upon them (the same way that Mises expanded upon Bohm-Bawerk's ideas).

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:18:23 GMT

I don't think I agree with you about Hayek being inferior. I never was fond of praxeology to be honest. The majority of the conclusions are correct, yes, but Hayek methodology always seemed to be superior at explaining things like the organizing power of the price mechanism.

I am betting that our philosophical frameworks are hugely divergent, then. I don't agree with Mises on everything, but as an Aristotilian I think praxeology is obviously true. In fact, I would say it is nonsense to deny it.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

MisguidedThoughts — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:10:14 GMT

Admittedly Mises can be very dry, which is why many people prefer Rothbard whose writings generally had quite a bit more wit sprinkled in. I forgive people who can't get through Human Action. Lord knows I can't.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

Esuric — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:45:23 GMT

This thread sucks.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

AdrianHealey — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 07:16:42 GMT

Now we have settled this issue; could you respond to some previous questions, where you made some accusations without substantiating them?

Thanks.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

AdrianHealey — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 07:13:13 GMT

Ricky James Moore II:
I notice your frustration that the apologetics for your untenable position are falling apart.

Not really; I feel really comfortable regarding my knowledge of the issue at hand, thank you very much.

I got frustrated because copy/pasting from a pdf file sucks.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

AdrianHealey — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 07:12:06 GMT

Ricky James Moore II:

I'm sorry. You are reading things into that statement that weren't said. I must ask you to stop doing that.

Perhaps if your statements were more articulate this wouldn't crop up.

The concept of entrepreneurial for casting of the possible price spread is called appraisement.

And forecasting of the profitability of appraised prices for future entrepreneurial action is economic calculation. Economic calculation is not backward looking. Mises states repeatedly that past prices are of no use to an entrepreneur for future forecasting, and it is only wherein one has a monetary standard and private ownership of capital that one can make calculate the economy of possible alternative investments. Economic calculation is not about figuring whether one has made a profit or loss in the past, it is about figuring whether one expects a profit or loss in various lines of future investment.

Yes, you are right. The terminology 'calculation' is used for something where appraisement is a part of, or the solution to.

I will, however, emphasize, again that I never said that entrepreneurial decision making was back ward looking. I used another - wrong - definition of caclulation. Shit happens.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

Ricky James Moore II — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 07:06:24 GMT

I'm sorry. You are reading things into that statement that weren't said. I must ask you to stop doing that.

Perhaps if your statements were more articulate this wouldn't crop up.

The concept of entrepreneurial for casting of the possible price spread is called appraisement.

And forecasting of the profitability of appraised prices for future entrepreneurial action is economic calculation. Economic calculation is not backward looking. Mises states repeatedly that past prices are of no use to an entrepreneur for future forecasting, and it is only wherein one has a monetary standard and private ownership of capital that one can make calculate the economy of possible alternative investments. Economic calculation is not about figuring whether one has made a profit or loss in the past, it is about figuring whether one expects a profit or loss in various lines of future investment.

Ah, fuck thi shit. The quote is from 'Reply to Leland B. Yeager'. Notice how he keeps calling it 'appraisement'?

I notice your frustration that the apologetics for your untenable position are falling apart.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

AdrianHealey — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 07:01:59 GMT

Ricky James Moore II:

The process of calculation is to ex post calculate - based on prices - wether or not a business venture was successful.

This right here. Which would indicate that knowledge of past prices is what is important. It is not. It is the conceptual possibility of profit within the framework of enterpreneurial for casting - ex ante - that defines economic calculation.

I'm sorry. You are reading things into that statement that weren't said. I must ask you to stop doing that.

The concept of entrepreneurial for casting of the possible price spread is called appraisement.

Edit: after rereading it, it seems that they technical terminology is different as I'm using it here. The idea of appraisement is part of, our the solution to, the concept of calculation. It's clear that I wasn't using it in this sense. Since I'm must abide by the terminology usually used, I was wrong in expressing it like that.

I don't think, however, that I made any mistakes in what I tried to convey, though.

Salerno:

" Rather, it is concerned with the lack of a genuinely competitive and social market process in which each and every kind of scarce resource receives an objective and quantitative price appraisement in terms of a common denominator reflecting consumer preferences. This social appraisement process of the marketits sumer preferences. This social appraisement process of the market Inator reflecting its relative importance in serving (anticipated)con-

transforms the substantially qualitative knowledge about economic conditions acquired individually and independently by competing including their estimates of the incommensurable of individual consumers for the whole array of system of objective exchange ratios for the myriads of original and intermediate factors of production. It is the elements of this coordinated structure of monetary price appraise- ments for resources in conjunction with appraised future prices of consumer goods which serve as the data in the entrepreneurial profit

a rational allocation of resources."

Ah, fuck thi shit. The quote is from 'Reply to Leland B. Yeager'. Notice how he keeps calling it 'appraisement'?

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

Ricky James Moore II — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:53:59 GMT

The process of calculation is to ex post calculate - based on prices - wether or not a business venture was successful.

This right here. Which would indicate that knowledge of past prices is what is important. It is not. It is the conceptual possibility of profit within the framework of enterpreneurial for casting - ex ante - that defines economic calculation.

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

AdrianHealey — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:49:05 GMT

Ricky James Moore II:

Actually, the concept of 'appraisement' is 'the possibility of making forecasts as to profitability'. The process of calculation is to ex post calculate - based on prices - wether or not a business venture was successful. Or, at least, that's how I got it.

You get it wrong, a perfect example of the error of Hayekian 'knowledge' theoretics misapplied to calculation. I suggest you re-read Mises. Past prices are nothing but data, of no more necessary relevance to business plans than the specific gravity of iron atoms. All entrepreneurial action is forward-looking, and thus to be of any use to the entrepreneur so must calculation. Whether a firm or product sold at a profit or loss in the past tells him nothing about whether it 'will' in the future (necessarily). What the existence of money an capital ownership allows is for the entrepreneur to look forward and by use of the concept of money articulate whether his expected returns will offset his expected costs, and whether such a venture is worthwhile compared to the expected returns of other alternatives. Neither of this is conceptually possible without money or the control of capital.

Past prices and profits are the province of accountants, not entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial calculation would continue even if all knowledge of past prices were wiped out.

So what part of this tirade says something different than I said, i.e. where do you proof that I was wrong? What you explain, is the idea of appraissement - as re-emphasized by Salerno.

The only thing that's different in you denying that past prices are completely irrelevant. Which is true in one sense; entrepreneurial decision making is forward looking.

But how, without prices, can an entrepreneur know wether or not his venture was profitable ex post? It's true that an entrepreneur doesn't really care - history is history. In a world where all past data is erradicated, it's impossible to check wether or not past ventures were profitable. This isn't all that important - entrepreneurship is forward looking. But that doesn't mean it's nonsensical.

And can you proof that this is 'an example of the error of Hayekian knowledge theoretics', or is that just a meaningless assertion you're adding in there?

Re: Are Non-Misesian Austrians Too Lazy or Too Statist?

Ricky James Moore II — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:46:35 GMT

I don't think Hayek ever considered himself a praxeologist.

I agree here, Hayek was deeply influenced by the Lockean and British logical empiricist schools; whereas Mises was strongly influenced by Bergson and Husserl (earlier terminology aside, Mises was more a realist-phenomonologist than a Kantian, and he moves away from Kantian terminology in his later work).