Here's a review I recently read of Human Action on Amazon.com:
Indeed, the author holds that "identical events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response. We do not know why". This is a particularly odd statement, as the author is asserting implicitly that he has an ability or a tool for distinguishing one event from another, and for judging when they are the same. Is the author asserting the existence of a metric, a purely quantitative notion, for distinguishing between events? This would go against another statement he makes elsewhere, namely that "no such constant relations exist in the field of human action". And later, he states that "in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible." If what he is saying is true, then it would definitely be impossible to label one event as being identical to another, nor in a "quantitative" nor "qualitative" sense. Identical events would definitely stand in a constant relation to one another.
The author attempts to categorize his approach to economics, which he labels as a "praxeological system", as different from a "logical system", the latter of which does not include notions of time and causality. But logical systems that contain these notions have been constructed and have been studied by a number of individuals, going by the name of deontic logic. And just because "events are irreversible", as the author (only partially) correctly observes, does not mean that historical or economic events cannot be categorized and studied to the extent that future events can be predicted (albeit within a certain tolerance) using this information. In fact, it is sometimes astounding to the degree that one can do this, particulary in the the use of artificial intelligence for economic time series prediction. Irreversibility can be dealt with, given the patience and sound mathematical tools.
The notions of probability that the author holds to in the book are also interesting (and somewhat troubling). One is called "class probability" and is the familiar frequentist notion. The other is called "case probability", and is apparently the one that the author favors in the study of economics. I thought when reading the book that case probability would perhaps be a Bayesian notion, since he states that it deals with the incompleteness of our knowledge. But alas, the author states that "it is not open to any kind of numerical evaluation". His notion of case probability could perhaps however be compared with the field of inductive logic programming in artificial intelligence, wherein one is given a certain amount of "background knowledge" and positive examples and attempts to find the reasons or "hypotheses" for obtaining this knowledge without generating any "negative examples". All of this is done in a purely qualitative framework.
Game theory has generated much research in economics, and there are fine examples of just how fruitful this approach can be. The author however does not hold any place for game theory in economics, stating that "there is not the slightest analogy between playing games and the conduct of business within a market society". This is an outstanding statement, given the many examples of just how game theory can in some instances exactly model the business arrangements among a certain group of individuals. Examples of this include QoS provisioning in telecommunication networks and wireless bandwidth allocation. The theory of noncooperative games has in this case been extremely helpful in bargaining and allocation strategies in the business environment. Noncooperation does not by result automatically in the "social disintegration" of the participants, as claimed by the author. With the proper mathematical tools they can instead reach a level mutually satisfactory to all.
"Human Action" should be read as perhaps a warm-up to the study of economics. Anyone genuinely interested in the dynamics of a capitalist economy however will not find a sound and scientific study of such in this book.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been about 10 years since I read Human Action. I'm planning on re-reading it soon, but I want to examine it with a more critical eye. That being said, I would be interested to hear any thoughts about the ideas this reviewer had. Of all the critical reviews of Human Action, this one seemed the most coherent. I admire Von Mise's character, standing up to socialists of all types when it was very unfashionable to do so (and dangerous as well), however, I am not interested in creating an "echo chamber" here. I am more interested in hearing about actual substantial criticisms of Human Action.
Welcome!
That guy's reasoning isn't sound. He uses appeals to authority to deny the book rather than imploding the arguments himself.
You can quantify things behind economic behavior? Awesome. I must have a desire to post on mises.org that is 100X greater (or some number that these "experts" can find) desire to post on mises.org, compared to homework.
Schools are labour camps.
Benx6444: I am not interested in creating an "echo chamber" here. I am more interested in hearing about actual substantial criticisms of Human Action.
What are your criticisms? What are your opinions on the comment you posted?
You say it brings up issues for you, but neglect to tell us what those issues are.
Anyone can copy/paste. Give and ye shall receive.
"It is interesting to think about the author's statements in the context of the Nobel prizes in economics this year, as they were given to honor the use of psychological modeling and empirical studies in economics. What these individuals have shown is that one can indeed quantity the subjective factors behind economic behavior.
The author of this book would be find their contributions completely vacuous, based on his statements in this book."
This last statement is purely descriptive, and does not even approach a cogent criticism of the author's stance. It seems he believes his naked appeal to authority (Nobel Prize winners are somehow validated) is enough for his audience.
I'm interested in what specific arguments you find compelling, so I don't have to waste my time with nonsense unless I have to.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
I think Robert P. Murphy's study guide on Human Action addresses some of the issues in the above review. Basically, Mises was criticizing mainstream economics as it existed at the time. Therefore, some new developments he didn't foresee may have rendered his work lacking in some parts.
"Indeed, the author holds that "identical events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response. We do not know why". This is a particularly odd statement, as the author is asserting implicitly that he has an ability or a tool for distinguishing one event from another, and for judging when they are the same. Is the author asserting the existence of a metric, a purely quantitative notion, for distinguishing between events? This would go against another statement he makes elsewhere, namely that "no such constant relations exist in the field of human action."
Well, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this statement. This reeks of the typical post-modern critique (check some of this guys other reviews - he apparently loves Foucault, Derrida, et. al. Also the guy has, apparently, written over 800 reviews but, from what I could find, has not published a single book.) of "deconstructing" and then dismissing anything that rubs their political sentiments the wrong way. From what I've read this usually involves exposing the contradictions within an authors work.
So I guess my question here is, is there really a contradiction here between what Mises says about the impossibility of planning an economy due, in large part, to the unpredictable nature of human action and Mise's seeming implicit assertion that he has, according to the reviewer, "a tool for distinguishing one event from another, and for judging when they are the same." Is the supposed contradiction that the Reviewer is trying to say exists an actual contradiction, or isn't it? Or is it perhaps a "hollow" contradiction that only further backs up Mises's point about the inability to plan an economy based on the predicting human action?
Professor Ludwig Von Mises: Identical events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response.
Identical events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response.
That is an odd statement, considering that it is impossible to isolate people for experimental purposes and know causal relations between events (completely controlled by the scientist) and the human response. I think that Mises tried to say that, given an event, it is impossible to know the response ex ante (and trying and modelling won't work anyway). Even so, that statement is not clear enough.
It is an interesting critique and I think that others here have been too harsh with acusations of appeals to authority and not citing sources for his claims when this is, afterall, a review. It is not meant to be a detailed critique.
It does at least illustrate the need to examine whether the arguments Mises used in his day against the statistical and historical methodologies of economics still stand up given modern advances. It may very well transpire that these methodologies now have something to offer, at least in conjunction the the praxeological method.
There is one paragraph (above) at least that he appears to be chopping logic:
There are no constant relations between events and human action but that does not mean that there are no constant relations between events. Of course one can compare events. Unemployment is 20%. 30 Years ago it was 20%. Therefore these events are identical, a simple statistical fact. But the causes and effects of this "event" need have no relation to the identical event that occurred 30 years ago.
Benx6444:This book is a non-quantitative, non-analytical, purely descriptive overview of economics as given by one of the main figures in the 'Austrian' school of economics.
Dr. Carlson obviously can't tell that there is a difference between quantitative analysis, and qualitative analyisis, and that Human Action is obviously an example of the latter. In addition, I find it funny that he does not quote anything around after pg. 50 of the book, and only focuses on a single chapter. Not only is that a bad method of reviewing, which should take Human Action as a single organic entity, not a bunch of chapters that are in a series, but it also points to the fact that mabye Dr. Carlson never got beyond that chapter. The fact that he dismisses the book as merely "descriptive" also brings that to mind since it is only in the later part of the book that Mises gets to heavy-duty economic analysis.
Benx6444:The author does not hesitate to denounce those who would seek to bring in mathematics and statistics in to the study of economics, and he makes it clear that introducing these tools is a meaningless endeavor. It is interesting to think about the author's statements in the context of the Nobel prizes in economics this year, as they were given to honor the use of psychological modeling and empirical studies in economics.
Boring argumentum ad verecundiam, the Noble prizes awards someone for a discipline of study that what dismisses; ergo, Mises is wrong.
Benx6444:Indeed, the author holds that "identical events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response. We do not know why". This is a particularly odd statement, as the author is asserting implicitly that he has an ability or a tool for distinguishing one event from another, and for judging when they are the same.
Never does Mises dismiss that it is possible for individual humans to sometimes read the subjective emotions, and reactions of others based on external events, most often this will be with family, friends, and those that they are close to, and from this experience we can learn that the above statement is true - but that is not economic analysis.Indeed, the statement is such a truism that I do not see why Dr. Carlson bothered to attack Mises on it other than Dr. Carlson being a post-Modern idiot who denies basic human nature.
Benx6444:The author attempts to categorize his approach to economics, which he labels as a "praxeological system", as different from a "logical system", the latter of which does not include notions of time and causality. But logical systems that contain these notions have been constructed and have been studied by a number of individuals, going by the name of deontic logic.
Again anything argumentum ad verecundiam where the author does not bothering showing why Mises is wrong; instead, he just says that because others do things differently from Mises, that ergo Mises is wrong.
Benx6444:And just because "events are irreversible", as the author (only partially) correctly observes, does not mean that historical or economic events cannot be categorized and studied to the extent that future events can be predicted (albeit within a certain tolerance) using this information. In fact, it is sometimes astounding to the degree that one can do this, particulary in the the use of artificial intelligence for economic time series prediction. Irreversibility can be dealt with, given the patience and sound mathematical tools.
First of all how, according to Dr. Carlson, does Mises only partially correctly observe that "events are irreversible;" for some reason I think I'd be travelling into the post-Modernism's heart of darkness if that were answered.
Second of all, has not Dr. Carlson heard of LTCM? Even though a couple of their board of directors recieved Nobel Prizes for their new mathematical methods, the entire project went down in flames so I don't see any truth whatsoever in his last sentance.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
I've read the review (in the past) and was unimpressed. Grant Beaty's and McNiven's comments in particular address the author's "criticisms" of Mises. I am pretty sure Carlson thinks economics must be "quantitative" to be scientific. Nice, but that is his opinion and no more.
Mises's point is that to interpret economic behaviour properly one must find its roots (purposeful behaviour, action) and proceed thence. Mere observation of physical phenomena will not suffice for economic analysis. That's all. So Mises starts with the most general elements garnered through a reflective understanding of human action (e.g. preferences whose content is not specified) and uses them as his raw ingredients for economic analysis. Carlson is obviously oblivious to such knowledge. Nothing Mises says implies one can know the content of a preference, and thus plan an economy. In fact if my understanding of Mises were so egregious as the reviewer's I'd be embarrassed to keep the review up,
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Are you Anthony on Amazon?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Not germane to the discussion, but I will divulge it's an acquaintance of mine under a pseudonym.
lol, awesome, thank you man, I'll give this some thought. Is there any criticism of Human Action (debunked or not) that's been leveled at Human Action that you know of?
Not any serious ones that I know of on it specifically (minus Rothbard's critique of Mises's theory of monopoly and some others by Austrians here or there, e.g. Hulsmann on interest), though look up Bryan Caplan's "Why I am not an Austrian" for an attempt at criticising the Austrians (but also look up responses to it by Block and others, as well as on this site.)
Inquisitor?