Economics Questions

Re: Why only one Axiom?

vive la insurrection — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:05:16 GMT

@ Wheylous:

Thanks, that's the 1st time I've been called "mature", lol

@ Autolykos:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28405.aspx

Re: Why only one Axiom?

Clayton — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 20:48:19 GMT

"Humans act" is a synthetic axiom, that is, it's really a pseudonym for a group of axioms, each of which can be understood (though not proven) as following from the fact that humans act.

Also, bear in mind that when we say "only axiom" we implicitly mean the "only economic axiom" since the axioms of logic and so on must be supposed in order to even have a discussion. The law of identity does not follow from "humans act."

Clayton -

Re: Why only one Axiom?

Wheylous — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:03:54 GMT

I've actually started to appreciate your posts. I will need some more maturing before we can have long conversations.

Re: Why only one Axiom?

vive la insurrection — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:14:32 GMT

Exactly. We actually understand each other for once.

That deserves a bottle of champagne being cracked open, lol

Re: Why only one Axiom?

Wheylous — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 04:21:22 GMT

Haha, you noticed I edited my post? I forgot to mention you :P

Re: Why only one Axiom?

vive la insurrection — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 04:04:20 GMT

It should also be noted that not all Austrians even have to accept the action axiom:

Ludwig Lachmann's definition (a man who's views I am growing more sympathetic to):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdymByxT1Gg

(around the 4 min mark)

But it ought be noted that I don't think the Megerian-Lachmann line necessarily adopt the action axiom. This needs verification though

Re: Why only one Axiom?

Smiling Dave — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:40:33 GMT

Because I didn't feel like it?

Excellent answer, literally LOLed. :)

And Ty for compliment, Wheylous.

Re: Why only one Axiom?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:31:38 GMT

Because I didn't feel like it?

Re: Why only one Axiom?

FunkedUp — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:31:35 GMT

The non-agression principle is derived from the more fundamental axiom of argumentation. Essentially, there are two axioms in Austrian theory: action (economics) and argumentation (ethics).

Re: Why only one Axiom?

Smiling Dave — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:29:16 GMT

I was merely saying that an Austrian economist could agree with the Non-Aggression Axiom.

Why didnt you enumerate the axioms of set theory as well, or of physics and chemistry and biology, in fact all axioms in all fields of human knowledge? After all, an Austrain economist could agree with all of those, too.

Re: Why only one Axiom?

Autolykos — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:16:20 GMT

vive la insurrection:
something like this could work too - I was kind of thinking about that the other day

Ex:

The Mengerian scientific notion must require human action

after that you have thymology, praxeology, etc.

Exactly. We actually understand each other for once.

I think at least one other primitive notion might be needed - satisfaction, or utility.

Also, action might not be a primitive notion after all. Mises defines it as "purposeful behavior", which could presuppose two more primitive notions, namely purpose and behavior.

Re: Why only one Axiom?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:16:09 GMT

Where did I say that Austrians were Anarcho-Capitalists?

I was merely saying that an Austrian economist could agree with the Non-Aggression Axiom. (Yeah, I know, we're Wert-frei as economists, blah blah, but that's aside the point. Rothbard was an Austrian economist who believed in the NAA).

Re: Why only one Axiom?

Smiling Dave — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:14:41 GMT

Rothbard has about 5:

http://mises.org/daily/5195/In-Defense-of-quotExtreme-Apriorismquot

non aggresion is not economics, but libertarian philosophy.

supply and demand and marginal utility are deducible from Rothbard's axioms, as shown in HA and AGD.

The rule is, one uses as few axioms as possible, because that way you have less to be challanged on. After all, an axiom is, by definition, unproven. In Euclid's time his axioms were considered self evident, despite being unprovable. Mises claims there is a deep proof of the action axiom. The others that Rothbard added are, in his eyes, self evident to anyone who looks around our little world.

In any case, Euclid would have loved to get by with less axioms, but he couldn't. He needed every last one that he enumerated. If economics truly gets by with less axioms than geometry, then it is in a certain sense superior to geometry.

Re: Why only one Axiom?

Wheylous — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:09:23 GMT

Austrians =/= AnCaps. It so happens that many AnCaps are "Austrians" (though it's likely that not many completely wield the economic understanding of some of the better users on here like Neodoxy and Smiling Dave).

Re: Why only one Axiom?

RothbardsDisciple — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 02:59:50 GMT

Oh, I agree 100% vive. My only point is that, although extensions from the action axiom, something like marginal utility can itself be considered an axiom, or at least axiomatic in nature.

As to the NAA...Wheylous didn't specify that we were only talking about economic axioms (he said "Why do Austrians only hold one axiom?", not "Why do Austrians only hold one economic axiom?"), so I just included it in my list.