So I have repeatedly bumped into Victor Aguilar's "Axiomatic Economics" which he claims completely overthrows Austrian Economics. I've read some of it and, to be honest, his jargon and method of exposition make it terribly difficult to comprehend and further, it's utterly dry. I was just wondering if anyone has made complete sense of it as I have not the patience for his incredibly boring writing style. I'm no slouch in mathematics either as I'm currently taking graduate level mathematics courses. I know Murphy wrote a rebuttal and Garrison's rebuttal is soon to come out. Aguilar claims he made mince meat of Murphy's criticism. His style, by the way, is overly arrogant and always seems to dance around everything rather then go right at.
Just looking for thoughts and interpretations of it, the background on Aguilar, etc.
He sounds like an obsessive crank. Ask someone who has patience with them.
He's clearly not a liberterarian as he makes it clear a number of times that he thinks government intervention is most obviously required and necessary for the welfare of people. These sort of comments make me far more dubious of his work. He clearly lacks an understanding of the free market.
I am a mathematican, so the dry notation doesn't faze me. Well, I tried to parse the "Axiomatic Economics" and it simply does not make much sense.
Impenetrable jargon is usually a sign of obscurantism; I have yet to see anyone saying aything worthwhile who'd engage in this kind of writing. The complexity tends to get better of the author's own wits, rendering the whole formal argument rather useless.
if he's claiming axioms, then he ought to have listed them - and then the fundamental assumptions of his grand paradigm are exposed (and from the sounds of it, they're likely nothing more than the antithesis of Austrian reality). The rest is fluff to justify a faulty foundation - since the truth is derived at with simple, concise arguments.
For reference, here is Victor Aguilar's critique of Austrian Economics:
http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/critiques.php
edward_1313: He's clearly not a liberterarian as he makes it clear a number of times that he thinks government intervention is most obviously required and necessary for the welfare of people. These sort of comments make me far more dubious of his work. He clearly lacks an understanding of the free market.
$100 says that you're a liar. Provide a quote of me supporting government intervention and I'll pay you. Otherwise, stop telling lies about me.
TomG: if he's claiming axioms, then he ought to have listed them - and then the fundamental assumptions of his grand paradigm are exposed (and from the sounds of it, they're likely nothing more than the antithesis of Austrian reality). The rest is fluff to justify a faulty foundation - since the truth is derived at with simple, concise arguments.
Congratulations, TomG, you’re famous! Aguilar cited you at www.axiomaticeconomics.com/perfected_economy.php
Ha! Ha! But on a serious note, while it’s great sport to poke fun at children like TomG, let us remember that they are just that: Children. The real issue is: Where are the professors?
If Roger Garrison were a leader, he wouldn’t leave these misguided children alone to flail at Aguilar in such an ineffective and obviously leaderless fashion.
Instead of cursing at Aguilar (or making up lies about him, as edward_1313 did), why don’t you guys wipe your noses and compose some nice, polite e-mails to Roger Garrison asking him to please – pretty please, with sugar on top – rebut Aguilar’s Critique of Austrian Economics.
Roger Garrison’s e-mail address is [email protected]
How’s that for a strategy?
Shaka:How’s that for a strategy?
Trolling is not a strategy.
Victor Aguilar: $100 says that you're a liar. Provide a quote of me supporting government intervention and I'll pay you. Otherwise, stop telling lies about me.
I found the following under Part I Section VIII of "Critique of Austrian Economics"
"In light of the recent scandals, we should point out that there is no invisible hand that prevents dishonest businessmen from cooking their books. For that we need government regulators. And we needed regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented conflicts of interest."
Dishonest businessmen cooking their books is criminal in the same way (though with less violence) as robbers holding up convenience stores. Do you also consider it "government intervention" when the police respond to a liquor store heist?
Victor Aguilar:Dishonest businessmen cooking their books is criminal in the same way (though with less violence) as robbers holding up convenience stores. Do you also consider it "government intervention" when the police respond to a liquor store heist?
Trying to weasel out of your bet? Pay up Victor. Both are examples of government intervention. You didn't specify any particular kind.
P.S. The state is illegitimate. I'd rather have private service providers handling both sorts of cases. And the Glass-Steagall Act isn't libertarian even by minarchist standards.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:The state is illegitimate. I'd rather have private service providers handling both sorts of cases.
That is not the issue.
Who is the victim of cooking?
scineram: Geoffrey Allan Plauche:The state is illegitimate. I'd rather have private service providers handling both sorts of cases. That is not the issue. Who is the victim of cooking?
The point is both are government interventions, even if you think one or both are legitimate interventions. Victor lost the bet.
Could this be, a serious "economist" posing as a fanboy of his?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Shaka: TomG: if he's claiming axioms, then he ought to have listed them - and then the fundamental assumptions of his grand paradigm are exposed (and from the sounds of it, they're likely nothing more than the antithesis of Austrian reality). The rest is fluff to justify a faulty foundation - since the truth is derived at with simple, concise arguments. Congratulations, TomG, you’re famous! Aguilar cited you at www.axiomaticeconomics.com/perfected_economy.php Ha! Ha! But on a serious note, while it’s great sport to poke fun at children like TomG, let us remember that they are just that: Children. The real issue is: Where are the professors? If Roger Garrison were a leader, he wouldn’t leave these misguided children alone to flail at Aguilar in such an ineffective and obviously leaderless fashion. Instead of cursing at Aguilar (or making up lies about him, as edward_1313 did), why don’t you guys wipe your noses and compose some nice, polite e-mails to Roger Garrison asking him to please – pretty please, with sugar on top – rebut Aguilar’s Critique of Austrian Economics. Roger Garrison’s e-mail address is [email protected] How’s that for a strategy?
Hi Victor. Do you often troll forums with sock puppets?
P.S. Your IP address gave you away.
The shareholders are the victims when a company cooks their books. They were deceived into buying the company's stock after reading about non-existent profits.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Hi Victor. Do you often troll forums with sock puppets? P.S. Your IP address gave you away.
Ha! I knew it, even without the IP address!
Nice GAP!
Where are the professors?
Where are the professors indeed!
Victor, pay up!
Victor Aguilar: Dishonest businessmen cooking their books is criminal in the same way (though with less violence) as robbers holding up convenience stores. Do you also consider it "government intervention" when the police respond to a liquor store heist?
And neither scenario requires legislation, regulatory bodies, or any other form of government to resolve.
Peace
Does anyone want to take the time to explain (in terms that a reasonably intelligent though not formally trained person can understand) how this guy claims to overthrow Austrian Economics? I'd be interested to see what he has to say, he certainly seems sure of himself, but I won't be able to wade through the math.
Or is considerable knowledge of math needed to understand how a market works?
I never considered legitimate response to crimes an intervention.
I also found this hilarious quotation on page 42 of "Critique of Austrian Economics From 1930 To 1990" by Victor Aguilar, and just thought I'd share it.
I submitted this paper to the QJAE in March of 2004. Seven months later I received the following referee comments. The envelope was postmarked 20 October 2004 though the letter inside had been back-dated to 16 April 2004.
Referee Comments:
“Critique of Austrian Economics From 1930 To 1990”
I can in no way recommend publication of this paper. Although purporting
to be a critique of the Austrian tradition since 1930, and while citing a
number of prominent Austrian economists, the paper reveals tremendous
ignorance of the Austrian tradition the author is supposed to be criticizing.
The notion that there was no Austrian tradition before Hayek published
Prices and Production, and that the big split within the tradition occurs
along Menger-Mises vs. Böhm-Bawerk/Hayek lines reveals that the author
knows not of what he is speaking.
The author grossly errs in equating the Austrian tradition itself with
capital theory, thus ignoring the core of Austrian economics: praxeological
price theory. The author further spends an inordinate amount of time
parsing details regarding which direction capital structure triangles lie and
which way arrows on diagrams point. Although these may be important
regarding pedagogy, they hardly define who gets the theory right and who
gets it wrong.
Finally, while making relatively grandiose claims as to the success of
his own axiomatic system as opposed to Mises’, the author merely asserts
that his axioms are right and that Mises’ are wrong. A critique must be
more than a tissue of assertions. It must reasonably demonstrate the problems
of the object of the criticism. In order to provide such a critique, it is
customary to know a reasonable amount of the object in question and to
provide sound reasons for the critique. The author of this paper does neither.
The writing is also way below the standard for acceptance in the
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. The paper is at times rambling,
at others incoherent, at others unscholarly both in its form and content.
For all of these reasons, this paper does not merit publication in the
QJAE (correspondence from Judith Thommesen, Managing Editor).
I think I have a couple of hard copies of Victor's critique of Austrian economics in a box somewhere. Somehow he got a hold of my university mailing address and sent them to me with his $1,000 challenge, calling for someone to write a rebuttal to his paper. It is my understanding that he's mailed this package to a lot of people. I wonder, did he ever pay former professor Bob Murphy for refuting his critique?
mitcjm: Does anyone want to take the time to explain (in terms that a reasonably intelligent though not formally trained person can understand) how this guy claims to overthrow Austrian Economics? I'd be interested to see what he has to say, he certainly seems sure of himself, but I won't be able to wade through the math. Or is considerable knowledge of math needed to understand how a market works?
I just finished his piece of junk, "Simplified Exposition of Axiomatic Economics." Unlike the Austrian methodology he doesn't ground his axioms in reality. Instead, it appears that they are chosen to make mathematical manipulation possible.
He assumes a cardinal value scale, rather than an ordinal one. That is, Mises and Rothbard both emphasized that ends are ranked on our value scales as greater or less than other ends, but there is no such thing as a measurable distance between them. Action only reveals that one state of affairs is preferable to another, but not how much it is preferred over the other.
He assumes continuous utility functions, expanding on the earlier mistake and makes other assumptions to allow mathematical manipulation.
And finally assumes that the value we attach to goods (phenomenon is the term he uses) is a random variable which can be described by probability distributions.
He spent a great deal of effort deriving several theorems from these axioms. I believe all of the mathematical proofs are correct. I haven't checked them all, nor will I at this hour. He seems competent at math. I'd say he has taken at least a first year university course in calculus and a second year couse in differential equations. But models of the world only desrcibe it to the extent that they are grounded in reality. His isn't so and doesn't do so.
And after all that work, he starts making arguments about the banking system and money. His arguments here are essentially austrian, though he does none of the theoretical work to lead up to his conclusions. He makes only brief reference to his theorems, practically demonstrating their uselessness. As for overthrowing Austrianism, he says in his critique that misesian methodology fails (whereas his suceeds) because the action axiom is just platitude. Other than this he gives no reasons why mises is wrong.
I really wish I had done something better with the last few hours.
Thanks Stephen Forde. Better your time wasted than mine
scineram: Who is the victim of cooking?
How cute! I can visualize you sitting on a stack of telephone books to reach the keyboard of your mother's computer so you can weigh in with these important questions.
Yes, Virginia, it is illegal to fabricate one's quarterly earnings report. It's called "fraud." And, if you don't believe me, ask Authur Anderson.
"The existence of a free market does not of course elliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the 'rules of the game' and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on." - Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, p. 15
Obviously, Aguilar is no more an advocate of government intervention than Friedman is. Edward_1313 was lying when he said that Aguilar is not a libertarian. Unable to defeat Aguilar, he attacked a straw man instead - a transparent ploy that would have gotten him laughed off any grown-up forum.
Lost children, left alone in the woods to fend for yourselves! You need a leader. If Roger Garrison will not (or cannot) lead you, then find a grown-up who can.
How about we just ignore cranks posing under fake accounts? Done deal? Good.
Pickles: scineram: Who is the victim of cooking? How cute! I can visualize you sitting on a stack of telephone books to reach the keyboard of your mother's computer so you can weigh in with these important questions. Yes, Virginia, it is illegal to fabricate one's quarterly earnings report. It's called "fraud." And, if you don't believe me, ask Authur Anderson. "The existence of a free market does not of course elliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the 'rules of the game' and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on." - Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, p. 15 Obviously, Aguilar is no more an advocate of government intervention than Friedman is. Edward_1313 was lying when he said that Aguilar is not a libertarian. Unable to defeat Aguilar, he attacked a straw man instead - a transparent ploy that would have gotten him laughed off any grown-up forum. Lost children, left alone in the woods to fend for yourselves! You need a leader. If Roger Garrison will not (or cannot) lead you, then find a grown-up who can.
Hhmmm...different IP address, but this is in the same style as the Shaka post which we know was made by Victor. In fact, Victor made two posts as Victor and the posts each have a different IP address. One of them has the same IP address as Shaka though. So it seems Victor knows how to change his IP address.
Well, listen up Victor. If you or any cronies of yours post any more trollish comments like those of your Shaka and Pickles sock puppets here I'll delete them and ban you.
Got it?
Good.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Hhmmm...different IP address, but this is in the same style as the Shaka post which we know was made by Victor. In fact, Victor made two posts as Victor and the posts each have a different IP address. One of them has the same IP address as Shaka though. So it seems Victor knows how to change his IP address.
It's not actually difficult. It's called dynamic IP addresses, and some ISPs use only those. My ISP assigns a new IP address out of a certain pool, and I imagine sometimes I get the same IP as before.
scineram: I never considered legitimate response to crimes an intervention.
Doesn't matter what you consider it, it's still a government intervention.
Also, if it were indeed "legitimate" it would not be governmental, and in that case you would be correct.
Fred Furash:It's not actually difficult. It's called dynamic IP addresses
No need for that. A proxy works fine.
It could very well be that he's logging in at various locations, however.
Pickles:How cute! I can visualize you sitting on a stack of telephone books to reach the keyboard of your mother's computer so you can weigh in with these important questions.
Well hello Mr. Agulair, I'm glad you offer up such scholarly material as this. You've really raised the level of this discussion with you're learned style. I suppose this too is an axiomatic statement? Or have you confused axiom with warentless assertion. It seems your essay suffers the same shortcomings.
Pickles:"The existence of a free market does not of course elliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the 'rules of the game' and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on." - Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, p. 15
Eh? Quoting Freidman must make you right.
Pickles:Obviously, Aguilar is no more an advocate of government intervention than Friedman is.
That's supposed to be good, I suppose?
Pickles: Edward_1313 was lying when he said that Aguilar is not a libertarian.
Well he, you, certainly doesn't uphold a principle of non-aggression, so I don't see how that would figure.
Pickles:Unable to defeat Aguilar, he attacked a straw man instead - a transparent ploy that would have gotten him laughed off any grown-up forum.
No, he is not in the same boat as you.
Pickles:Lost children, left alone in the woods to fend for yourselves! You need a leader. If Roger Garrison will not (or cannot) lead you, then find a grown-up who can.
Why is a grown up needed to defend against a deranged toddler?
First of all, whatever cooking up books means, how is it a crime to try to hold back what you have produced from being stolen by the state? Is hiding money from a racketeer a crime? Bookkeeping has two very distinguished purposes, one is to the benefit of the entrepreneuer or capitalist, the other is a coerced duty to enable the state to tax.
In the first case one would deprive oneself of the only way to see if a profit is made or not. So bookkeeping is totaly voluntary, even if highly significant. The second case is that the state wants to know how much wealth you gained to tax you accordingly. This is like a racketeer forces you to keep books so he can easily fix the amount of money he can take away without ruining you alltogether.
As you can see, your argument does not hold here, nor does it hold on other instances.
And for your second point, sure it is "government intervention" if the police responds to a heist, even if no liquor store is involved . The question is, does the government act on behalf of itself, or as an agent of the liquor store owner? If the liqour store owner wants the government to act on his behalf, the governement is covered, cause the liqour store owner has the right to defend himself against aggression. If the liqour store owner does not give the government the authority to proxy on his behalf, than the government itself has no right to intervene.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Right, so the shareholders, which is each individual shareholder, has now a right to ask for a compensation. This is a clearly a contractual issue (breach of contract) and not an issue the government has to be involved anyway.
banned:Doesn't matter what you consider it, it's still a government intervention.
It is not.
Is everybody here aware that Murphy capitulated?
http://www.gene-callahan.org/blog/2007/09/victor-aguilar-picks-his-next-victim.html
p.s. Please don't ban me, Geoffrey! I'm quoting Murphy, not He Whom We Cannot Name.
p.p.s. If you're really wondering whether HWWCN payed Murphy his $1000, why don't you just ask Murphy?
LOL What a loser. Do you realize no one gives a damn? Go back to your cave, troll.
scineram:It is not.
All state action is the government interveneing in the affairs that be. If you want to play some semantics game, fine, it's not that meaningful of a discussion anyways.