Another Axiomatic theory of Economics from the right

[IcarusAngel]

http://axiomaticeconomics.com/


"Click here (http://www.mises.org/story/2344) to read about Frank Shostak's "prophet," who he claims is "clairvoyant"
while insisting that Austrian Economics is not a cult."

At least this guy bases his axioms on truisms and axioms from mathematics, such as the fact that if p <= q and q <= r, implies p <= r. This "axiom" is actually used for many proofs in mathematics. At least everybody could agree on a "starting point" for this restricted set.

He also has some critiques of Mises as a mathematician and a logician and of the Austrian school as a whole for its false predictions and cultishness. He says Mises' method is a "pseudo-axiomatic method" (probably because he didn't base it on mathematics) although he says he has similar "axioms" to the Miseans.


So apparently there are TWO axiomatic versions of economics. The Misean one, and then this.

When Miseans bring up their axiomatic method, point to this website and ask them to explain why their axioms aren't as consistent.

Really, it seems the economics of the right gets more and more detached from reality, and the left would probably be wise to let them work on their "axioms" while we deal with real world problems.

[Skooma Addict]

Why not actually learn economics so you are informed about the subjects that you speak of?

[IcarusAngel]

I study only computer simulations of economics. That's where the truth lies.

[KC]

This turd posts over at debatepolitics.com as Onion Eater. He's a brain dead keyboard jockey.

[IcarusAngel]

Does he generally argue for capitalism? But yes, I've heard about that. He must know at least something about mathematics - and claims to be a mathematician himself. In any case his method seems more sound than Mises and he states his axioms up front (although reading the "first axiom" is pretty much like reading a constructivist theory of foreign affairs - nonsensical).

Our friends on the right get more detached from reality as time goes on. It's sad how conservatism went from Newton, Hume, Bacon, Sam Johnson (Dictionary maker), the Federalists, etc., to the anti-intellectual mess that it's in now.

[Skooma Addict]

Here is a reply by Murphy.

http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/Reply_to_Aguilar_by_Murphy.pdf

And here is a very funny thread.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/1430.aspx

[IcarusAngel]

That thread shows how kooky both sides are. First, the "mathematician" there accuses him of using "cardinal numbers" - which is appropriate, given that his axioms are only relevant for cardinal numbers. Then they claim it allows him to "manipulate mathematics" - where does he manipulate mathematics?

[IcarusAngel]

That thread is funny, though.

"My axioms are better than your axioms." It's like watching a scientologist debating a Mormon on the existence of extraterrestrials - they are "other people from other galaxies," they are "aliens who created life on earth."

[Left-Reasoning]

I study only computer simulations of economics. That's where the truth lies.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Left-Reasoning]

His "axioms" amount to "assume that utility is cardinal and thus that mathematics is applicable to economics". This is precisely the point that the Austrians deny and thus he is begging the question.

[075]

I study only computer simulations of economics. That's where the truth lies.

Considering there are contradictory economic models which computers simulate, your statement tells us nothing about anything. The 'truth lies' in the actual economy, of which models are only ever, at best, useful representations of.

[anticap]

The 'truth lies' in the actual economy

And the truth about the "actual economy" is that it's mostly just working-class folks trying to survive under an imposed set of rules that are neither written in the stars nor self-evidently wise. The real questions to be asked are, "Why these rules?" and "Who benefits?" and "Why do those assholes get to make the rules?" But of course, we're no longer exposed to those questions, because the assholes who make the rules have expunged political economy from academic discourse (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/commodityfetishism.htm) and replaced it with "economics," which asks no inconvenient questions, and accepts all the necessary presuppositions.

[075]

And the truth about the "actual economy" is that it's mostly just working-class folks trying to survive under an imposed set of rules that are neither written in the stars nor self-evidently wise. The real questions to be asked are, "Why these rules?" and "Who benefits?" and "Why do those assholes get to make the rules?"

I don't see how this has any relevance to what I said? My point was that the economic models that economists set up have little bearing on how the economy actually operates. IcarusAngel is just parroting neoclassical dogma if he thinks that these models have anything to do with a radical critique of the economy.


But of course, we're no longer exposed to those questions, because the assholes who make the rules have expunged political economy from academic discourse and replaced it with "economics," which asks no inconvenient questions, and accepts all the necessary presuppositions.

History of economic thought is offered as a unit in most half-decent universities. Economic History is an available major at most universities. Anyway, I agree; most economics students probably wouldn't even be aware of Ricardo or Malthus, let alone Marx. Bourgeosiie economics was called by Marx 'vulgar economics' because of its emphasis of application to business & commerce, and hence its lack of emphasis of political economy. So its hardly anything new which you're bemoaning.

[Dean]

You couldn't be more wrong.

Considering there are contradictory economic models which computers simulate, your statement tells us nothing about anything. The 'truth lies' in the actual economy, of which models are only ever, at best, useful representations of.

Don't you two see that he was referring to Austrians / Miseans and the like with this statement? Communists don't rely on computer generate economies, we never have.

[IcarusAngel]

Exactly dean, thanks (Dean's post was made while I was editing mine.)

I don't take Olaf seriously and merely try and piss him off, since he knows nothing about logic, economics, and other things he claims to be an expert in, but nonetheless cannot actually REFUTE other opinions, no matter what they be (Keynesianism, computational economics, etc.).

His latest example of either copying partially someone else's work, or giving an incomplete proof exactly like it, is proof he doesn't know what he's doing.

To avoid further confusion I'll just ignore his constant trolling.

[Skooma Addict]

Exactly dean, thanks (Dean's post was made while I was editing mine.)

I don't take Olaf seriously and merely try and piss him off, since he knows nothing about logic, economics, and other things he claims to be an expert in, but nonetheless cannot actually REFUTE other opinions, no matter what they be (Keynesianism, computational economics, etc.).

His latest example of either copying partially someone else's work, or giving an incomplete proof exactly like it, is proof he doesn't know what he's doing.

To avoid further confusion I'll just ignore his constant trolling.

It gets kind of annoying when you mention me in every one of your posts. And I have seen your trick before. If you cant give good replies to points another person is making, just say that you don't take them seriously thus giving yourself an excuse to dismiss any points they make. And for the thousandth time, I do not claim to be an expert in any of those topics.

And I am not going to get into this argument again, but I didn't copy any work. Just because my answer looked somewhat similar to another answer someone posted somewhere on the internet (what a suprise, you only asked the exact same problem) does not mean I copied it.

The funny thing is that you apparently did not know the answer to the problem you asked me, which is why you asked it on that website you linked me to. So much for all your insults...

And yes, I would be happy if you ignore my posts. But you should expect me to respond when you start insulting me or start saying that Austriasns are members of some cult. Or better yet, start talking about "robot axioms." I mean, you can't really critique Mises' axioms when you don't know what an axiom is.

That is all. Resome your conversation. Goodbye.

[075]

Don't you two see that he was referring to Austrians / Miseans and the like with this statement? Communists don't rely on computer generate economies, we never have.

And nor do Austrians, who are quite opposed to mathematical modelling, what's your point? (I am not at all opposed to mathematical modelling, its just plain wrong to claim that 'the truth' lies with them, and someone who links to Godel should probably have a half-clue when claiming such.)

Someone who claims that 'computer simulations of economies' are where the 'truth lies' are either (1) unaware of what computer simulations actually entail and hence (2) don't recognise the (often) ridiculous assumptions that those models operate under. If someone 'only studies' those models, then they're just plain ignorant. The best understandings and explanations of how the economy operates is entirely (or almost entirely) non-mathematical (e.g. Marx who had very little mathematics in Capital).

I never said anything about Marxists relying on 'computer generate economies' (whatever that means).

Lastly, someone (IcarcusAngel) who links to a book on game theory defending bourgeoisie economics, has absolutely no right to talk about how the right-wing is detatched from reality. Game theory is a complete defence of capitalism par excellence. Those who live in glass houses...

What a joke for someone who considers themselves a leftist to endorse a pro-capitalist author.

[IcarusAngel]

Lol. Olaf, you didn't even provide a proof. For example, you left out several statements that are necessary for the proof to be complete. Why would only provide half of the proof? There is more than one way to prove that problem - provide another way that is complete or admit you don't know what you're doing.

[IcarusAngel]

Lastly, someone (IcarcusAngel) who links to a book on game theory defending bourgeoisie economics, has absolutely no right to talk about how the right-wing is detatched from reality. Game theory is a complete defence of capitalism par excellence. Those who live in glass houses...

How is game theory, which shows that cooperative strategies are often more effective than competitive ones, supportive of capitalist theory?

It doesn't support one system or another, it is merely mathematics.

[075]

:laugh:

[075]

Game theory, so far as microeconomics is concerned, relies on the assumption that individuals are rational, that we are selfish & yada yada yada (‘completeness’, ‘transitivity’, ‘non-satiation’ and ‘convexity’ assumptions). Funnily enough, it conforms to the mathematical axiom that you descrbed above p <= q and q <= r, implies p <= r (known in economics as the Strong Axiom of Revealed Preference).

Of course, empiricism (another link in your signature! :laugh:) has proved these assumptions to be entirely irrelevant in practice; people don't act like robots or mindless consumers.

Game theory begins its analysis of society from the individual, because individual choices can be aggregated into the collective to derive a demand curve a la modern economics. This element of marginalism is largely accepted by the Austrian school which you so despise. :(

The very idea that we can analyse social relations from the individual, i.e methodological individualism, is a result of a bourgeoisie view of the world which, of course, has its emphasis on the individual. Do I need to point out that Marxism, on the other hand, approaches society from the perspective of classes & doesn't base itself on a priori principles like modern economics and Austrian school do?

The 'Marxists' who attempted to incorporate game theory into their 'Marxism' ended up dumping their 'Marxism.' You're half way there.

And whilst any mathematician/economist can demonstrate thru ad hoc mathematics that cooperative strategies are more effective than competitive ones (or vice versa, depending on the economist), such scribbling doesn't show anything apart from what the mathematician/economist wanted to originally prove.

Fancy that; looking at how the economy functions to understand how it actually functions!

[IcarusAngel]

And if you read my posts on this forum you'd see that I reject those assumptions about human nature. That said, there are certain strategies that can be developed, and when these contradict the Austrians own claims, they should be pointed out as evidence of how bankrupt it is.

Rosa has on the forum cited right-wingers, including the British racist and conservative who disagrees with Chomsky's linguistic work, even though the empirical evidence is on Chomsky's side, for example. Citing a right-winger to prove a specific point does not mean you have to agree with all of their views.

[Grozny]

Communists don't rely on computer generate economies, we never have.

Are you sure?

Cristobal Young (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=898914) (2005) writes:


It was the end of the Great Depression, ironically, that saw a tremendous revival of the General Equilibrium (GE)/Welfare economics project. In the US, a loose grouping of devout socialists were busy detailing the elegance of the market equilibrium. The leaders of the GE revival – Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner and Abram Bergson – were cutting-edge mathematical economists and true believers in Soviet-style central planning…

And the communists are still at it.

James Yunker (http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafrevpoe/v_3A19_3Ay_3A2007_3Ai_3A1_3Ap_3A81-113.htm) (2007) writes:


This article evaluates the performance of contemporary capitalism relative to that of a hypothetical alternative designated "profit-oriented market socialism." In most respects, profit-oriented market socialism would closely mimic contemporary market capitalism. The major difference would be that most profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend proportional to household wage and salary income rather than in proportion to household financial assets. The basis of the comparison is a small-scale but comprehensive computable general equilibrium model.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

And nor do Austrians, who are quite opposed to mathematical modelling, what's your point? (I am not at all opposed to mathematical modelling, its just plain wrong to claim that 'the truth' lies with them, and someone who links to Godel should probably have a half-clue when claiming such.)

Someone who claims that 'computer simulations of economies' are where the 'truth lies' are either (1) unaware of what computer simulations actually entail and hence (2) don't recognise the (often) ridiculous assumptions that those models operate under. If someone 'only studies' those models, then they're just plain ignorant. The best understandings and explanations of how the economy operates is entirely (or almost entirely) non-mathematical (e.g. Marx who had very little mathematics in Capital).

I never said anything about Marxists relying on 'computer generate economies' (whatever that means).

Lastly, someone (IcarcusAngel) who links to a book on game theory defending bourgeoisie economics, has absolutely no right to talk about how the right-wing is detatched from reality. Game theory is a complete defence of capitalism par excellence. Those who live in glass houses...

What a joke for someone who considers themselves a leftist to endorse a pro-capitalist author.

To be honest Icarus, she does have a point, you always seem to link to various "bourgeois" sources when you are arguing against some Austrian.

I've always felt you just try and out muscle people like Olaf by referencing some more prestigious or mainstream positions even though the content implied by such theories is deeply right wing (although less so obviously than anything Austrian.)

I suppose it achives your aim of belittingly the Austrian's insignificance, but in the face of their inevitable cries of various fallacies, it can't help matters when you turn around and argue for revolutionary leftism, which is at the moment, almost as antiquated as libertarianism. Mabye just try quoting Marx, he's usually pretty good? :cool:

Edit: When Rosa quoted that right wing sociobiologist it was to provide a critque of chomsky's views that she agreed with (that they were wrong for X or Y reasons)

The difference with what you quote is that it provides a critque of Austrian views from a point of view that you disagree with. So, Rosa came across as saying "Chomsky is wrong for these reasons listed here", wheras you come across as saying "Austrians are wrong for the reasons listed here, but these reasons are incorrect" which seems crazy and like your just trying to appeal to teh authority of some distinguished logic/ economic professor.

[AnCapJack]

That thread shows how kooky both sides are. First, the "mathematician" there accuses him of using "cardinal numbers" - which is appropriate, given that his axioms are only relevant for cardinal numbers.

wait...what?

[Agnapostate]

Game theory is malleable and not dependent on the neoclassical myth of the rational economic man/utility maximizer. People adhering to strategic dominance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_strategy) (unbridled pursuit of self-interest with the information available) will fail to maximize utility in Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_Dilemma) situations anyway, given the constrictions of bounded rationality and limited information. Cooperation thus comes out ahead in game theory.