Anti-Misesite projects for a rainy day

[anticap]

Any newbie poster at mises.org, eager to be indoctrinated, will ask which Unholy Scrolls to flagellate himself with first, and most answers will include the following:

1. Rothbard's For a New Liberty - [HTML (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp)|PDF (http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf)]

2. Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson - [HTML (http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/)|PDF (http://fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf)]

The former covers the gamut of right-"libertarian"/"anarcho"-capitalist "theory" and is probably the more satisfying target. (outline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_a_New_Liberty))

The latter is more specifically an economic attack that nobody here would want to defend against; but the arguments used are a goldmine of bourgeois apologetics just begging to be torn apart. (outline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson))

These are the two Evil Spellbooks that the Misesites like to use to try to snare the hapless kittens whose curiosity may lead to singed whiskers, or worse, if we don't have saucers of warm milk at the ready to lure them away from danger.

So, if you happen to find yourself with some free time on a rainy day, consider curling up with a bad book and running it through the shredder! Oh, and post your work, so that one day we might compile a complete dismantling of Misesianism 101. :thumbup1:

[Skooma Addict]

Nope. In fact you are the one who appears brainwashed. Econ in one lesson is a great book for laymen who just wants an extremely basic intro to economics to read. FANL is an introduction to libertarian natural law ethics and legal theory. Yes, introductions to various topics are written for the "newbie." Big deal.

[Drace]

I made an account there.
Wow these people actually believe Obama is a socialist and agree with Glenn Beck on Hitler being a leftist...

[Skooma Addict]

I made an account there.
Wow these people actually believe Obama is a socialist and agree with Glenn Beck on Hitler being a leftist...

People disagree on both of those issues.

[IcarusAngel]

The best counter arguments to the "axioms" are here:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/index.html

Someone on revleft posted this link. He uses arguments similar to the ones I use against those kind of "axioms."

Miseanism is extremely anti-intellectual. It's hard to read their stuff if you have any understanding of logic etc. When you read mathematics books, you agree with them, presuming you understand them. It "makes sense." People like stuff that logically makes sense; when you have Miseans with books where "every other sentence is a logical fallacy" (a description of Hoppe's work) it's just hard to read. I really can't stomach and just point out their more obvious fallacies.

That said, if Misean anti-logic is let loose, it would be deeply unethical. So it's hard to know what to do about it.

"At George Mason University I saw Hoppe present a lecture in which he claimed that Ludwig von Mises had set the intellectual foundation for not only economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics, as well. This bizarre claim turned a serious scholar and profound thinker into a comical cult figure, a sort of Euro Kim Il Sung. "
Tom G. Palmer, "For Mises' Sake" (http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/63palmer.html)

Mises didn't even like mathematics. And Mises had absolutely NOTHING to do with the development of geometry, or optics etc.. Where the fuck do they even get this stuff?

[anticap]

Nope.

Of course I didn't expect your kind to be interested. I only posted it here because I wasn't sure if it would be allowed elsewhere, seeing how it links directly to reactionary material.

If you have a shred of decency in you, I'll thank you not to derail this thread, or to fill it with superfluous conversation. I'd prefer to keep it sparse, except for submissions that (my) comrades might offer.

I invite you to open threads for discussion of the alleged merits of these Dark Texts, but this one is for critiquing them. If necessary I'll blank the OP and take my chances moving it out of the Misesian Swamp, but I'd rather not, as that would be a poor reflection on you. :(


The best counter arguments to the "axioms" are here:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/index.html

Someone on revleft posted this link.

That was me. I'm glad you found it beneficial. :)

[Drace]

People disagree on both of those issues.

Calling Obama's policies socialist is a simple logical contradiction between his actions and the definition of the word.

[Skooma Addict]

Calling Obama's policies socialist is a simple logical contradiction between his actions and the definition of the word.

I believe the ones who do think he is a socialist think that he implements policies which are not socialist themselves since he could never get away with that. Instead he tries to implement less radical policies that he can get away with.

[Dean]

Nope. In fact you are the one who appears brainwashed. Econ in one lesson is a great book for laymen who just wants an extremely basic intro to economics to read. FANL is an introduction to libertarian natural law ethics and legal theory. Yes, introductions to various topics are written for the "newbie." Big deal.

That's because your little economic 201 textbooks are primarily neoliberal musings.

Why is that, one might ask? It's very simple - neoliberal economics benefits the interests of those with accumulated capital (by enforcing moneyed market interests), and is therefore more salable to any rational profit-driven enterprise.

[Cal Engime]

The latter is more specifically an economic attack that nobody here would want to defend against; but the arguments used are a goldmine of bourgeois apologetics just begging to be torn apart. (outline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson))
The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.So...we should actually take a short-sighted, one-sided view of acts and policies?

[Dimentio]

The best counter arguments to the "axioms" are here:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/index.html (http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Ergb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/index.html)

Someone on revleft posted this link. He uses arguments similar to the ones I use against those kind of "axioms."

Miseanism is extremely anti-intellectual. It's hard to read their stuff if you have any understanding of logic etc. When you read mathematics books, you agree with them, presuming you understand them. It "makes sense." People like stuff that logically makes sense; when you have Miseans with books where "every other sentence is a logical fallacy" (a description of Hoppe's work) it's just hard to read. I really can't stomach and just point out their more obvious fallacies.

That said, if Misean anti-logic is let loose, it would be deeply unethical. So it's hard to know what to do about it.

"At George Mason University I saw Hoppe present a lecture in which he claimed that Ludwig von Mises had set the intellectual foundation for not only economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics, as well. This bizarre claim turned a serious scholar and profound thinker into a comical cult figure, a sort of Euro Kim Il Sung. "
Tom G. Palmer, "For Mises' Sake" (http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/63palmer.html)

Mises didn't even like mathematics. And Mises had absolutely NOTHING to do with the development of geometry, or optics etc.. Where the fuck do they even get this stuff?

Mises had a brother or cousin or something who was into optics and natural sciences. That is of course commendable, but has nothing to do with Ludwig.

[Havet]

Why is that, one might ask? It's very simple - neoliberal economics benefits the interests of those with accumulated capital (by enforcing moneyed market interests), and is therefore more salable to any rational profit-driven enterprise.

Which is why all private corporations support "misean economics", right?

Oh wait...

[Dimentio]

Really, there are several factions of the bourgeoisie. The majority is gravitating around keeping the status quo while courting moderately social liberal tendencies to ensure economic, social and ultimately political stability. The John Bircher and Contra types represents a more ideologically puritanist wing of capitalism, which for its own reasons want to see a lot of the progressive victories of the last hundred years rolled back. Often, they have overlaps with groups like the fascist-inspired WACL.

After WW2, most western nations saw a purge of one form or another of the most reactionary elements of the right-wing, which previously had been associated with conservatism (not the American but the European variation), due to the collaboration with fascism during the war. The same thing happened in the USA in the 1960's and 1970's when white supremacism was dethronised from an official mainstream ideology into a fringe element.

Most paranoia and fear from the militia movement, paleo-conservatives, miseseans and white supremacists are stemming from the experiences of 1968. Before civil rights legislation, American public discourse was probably more oriented towards social liberalism than the public discourse in other western nations.

Racism is of course the big elephant in the living room.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Yeah,

Tbh i think we should just gather all of the people that hate libertarianism on this site and make a faq refuting all of their crap to the nth degree

[Dean]

Which is why all private corporations support "misean economics", right?

Oh wait...

What does that matter? People act against their interests in any market. It doesn't change the clear direction of market driven systems.

[Havet]

What does that matter? People act against their interests in any market. It doesn't change the clear direction of market driven systems.

Are you telling me that I give guitar lessons to my cousin for 5 euros per session, against my own interests?

I don't think so. Try again.

[Dean]

Are you telling me that I give guitar lessons to my cousin for 5 euros per session, against my own interests?

I don't think so. Try again.

No, I won't, because your fringe cases are neither common nor expected in a for-profit economy. Your example doesn't even refer to the activities of accumulated capital.

[Havet]

No, I won't, because your fringe cases are neither common nor expected in a for-profit economy.

Oh really?

Does the steel mill buy iron ore against their own interest?

Does the baker buy flower against his own interest?

Do music teachers trade teaching for money against their own interest?


Your example doesn't even refer to the activities of accumulated capital.

And? Such fact does not refute my example. You claimed economic agents act against their own interest. Proceed to support that claim.

[Dimentio]

Oh really?

Does the steel mill buy iron ore against their own interest?

Does the baker buy flower against his own interest?

Do music teachers trade teaching for money against their own interest?



And? Such fact does not refute my example. You claimed economic agents act against their own interest. Proceed to support that claim.

I think Dean's referring to workers.

*cough cough*

Besides, self-interest could lead into several options. If you for example is held hostage by a guy who is wielding a knife, it could be in your interest both to allow him to do what he wants to do with you because of the perceived threat to your life, or fight back because the other pains he is going to inflict on you.

[Havet]

I think Dean's referring to workers.

Am I not the worker in the first example I portrayed?

Anyway, it's also in the steel mill worker's interest to get the ore, otherwise they will not produce, and they will not sell and therefore they will not receive pay, or in the interest of any other workers in the other industries I exempified


Besides, self-interest could lead into several options. If you for example is held hostage by a guy who is wielding a knife, it could be in your interest both to allow him to do what he wants to do with you because of the perceived threat to your life, or fight back because the other pains he is going to inflict on you.

We were talking about business, not life-boat scenarios (no offense!)

[Dean]

Oh really?

Does the steel mill buy iron ore against their own interest?

Does the baker buy flower against his own interest?

Do music teachers trade teaching for money against their own interest?
How do any of those things contradict Misean economics? I thought you were talking about selling things at far lower than optimal pricing. I think we're talking about two different things now.




And? Such fact does not refute my example. You claimed economic agents act against their own interest. Proceed to support that claim.
Support for the AFL-CIO is a good example.

[Havet]

How do any of those things contradict Misean economics?

Why are you assuming that I care about "misean economics"?


I thought you were talking about selling things at far lower than optimal pricing. I think we're talking about two different things now.

We were talking about economics entities doing things because its in their self-interest to do so.


Support for the AFL-CIO is a good example.

I don't see how supporting the reduction of central bureaucracy, spending more money on organizing new members rather than on electoral politcs and a restructuring of unions and locals somehow supports your statement that economic agents NEVER act in their self-interest.

Even so, it's only one example. You would have to show that economic entities doing transactions against their own interest is the predominant course of action. Which it isn't.

[Dean]

Why are you assuming that I care about "misean economics"?

I'm not, its just that misean economics was the topic:



Why is that, one might ask? It's very simple - neoliberal economics benefits the interests of those with accumulated capital (by enforcing moneyed market interests), and is therefore more salable to any rational profit-driven enterprise.

Which is why all private corporations support "misean economics", right?

Oh wait...

We were talking about economics entities doing things because its in their self-interest to do so.



I don't see how supporting the reduction of central bureaucracy, spending more money on organizing new members rather than on electoral politcs and a restructuring of unions and locals somehow supports your statement that economic agents NEVER act in their self-interest.
I never made such a statement.


Even so, it's only one example. You would have to show that economic entities doing transactions against their own interest is the predominant course of action. Which it isn't.
I never said that, I said quite the contrary! I said that it was in the interests of capitalist firms to utilize and encourage free-market economic theory, since it supports economic policies which empower them. You seemed to indicate that people did things that contradicted their self-interest, so that was where that tangent spilled from.

In any case, my original point is supported if economic actors act in their self-interest. Furthermore, you have no business asserting that you aren't interested in Misean economics or its application if that is the primary topic of discussion, which it is.

You're arguing yourself into a corner from an undefined edifice, which is typical since you are nothing more than a market reactionary.

[Havet]

I'm not, its just that misean economics was the topic:

Okie Dokey


I never made such a statement.

I think you did:


What does that matter? People act against their interests in any market. It doesn't change the clear direction of market driven systems.


Support for the AFL-CIO is a good example.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1724230&postcount=15

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1724352&postcount=21


I never said that, I said quite the contrary! I said that it was in the interests of capitalist firms to utilize and encourage free-market economic theory, since it supports economic policies which empower them. You seemed to indicate that people did things that contradicted their self-interest, so that was where that tangent spilled from.

If that were true, then all capitalist firms would support right-libertarian/"misean" free-market economic theories. But they don't (unless you can provide me with proof that they do. I thought right-libertarian/misean economic theory was a fringe/marginalist spectrum of economic theories).


Furthermore, you have no business asserting that you aren't interested in Misean economics or its application if that is the primary topic of discussion, which it is.

Lol

First is was misean economics, then you switched your rethoric to "neoliberal musings" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1723998&postcount=9)

[mikelepore]

If you for example is held hostage by a guy who is wielding a knife, it could be in your interest both to allow him to do what he wants to do with you because of the perceived threat to your life, or fight back because the other pains he is going to inflict on you.

That's the same point that I always try to explain to them! Suppose the inquisitor says, "If you confess to witchcraft then I won't stick this red-hot poker into your eye." Therefore, I confess. We have both benefitted by my decision to confess: the inquisitor has a signed confession to impress his boss, and I get to keep my eye. Therefore, the argument that any transaction or contract is good as long as both parties benefit is a seriously defective argument. The fact that both parties benefit by an "agreement" tells us nothing about whether the situation is desirable or just or productive by any criterion whatsoever.

[Dean]

I think you did:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1724230&postcount=15

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1724352&postcount=21
Where does that say that "people always act against their interests"? Saying that "people do" is explicitly different than saying that "people always do." Furthermore, this was in repose to your cryptic remark which seemed to indicate that self-interest was not a primary motivation.

How dense are you?




If that were true, then all capitalist firms would support right-libertarian/"misean" free-market economic theories. But they don't (unless you can provide me with proof that they do. I thought right-libertarian/misean economic theory was a fringe/marginalist spectrum of economic theories).
Right. And this is because people act against their interests in any market. Predominantly, however (and this is key because its the whole fucking point) primarily, people act towards their self interest - for profit regimes are benefited by free-market ideology.




First is was misean economics, then you switched your rethoric to "neoliberal musings" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1723998&postcount=9)

Why does every topic for you have to be some cryptic mystical paradigm? You and I both know what the topic is. I said that Economics 201 would support Misean economics for this reason:


That's because your little economic 201 textbooks are primarily neoliberal musings.

Why is that, one might ask? It's very simple - neoliberal economics benefits the interests of those with accumulated capital (by enforcing moneyed market interests), and is therefore more salable to any rational profit-driven enterprise.

So they were compared from the very beginning. Why are you shocked at something that was stated before you even joined the debate? Contradict it if you must, but at this point you are way behind.

Which is, again, unsurprising. Your posts are increasingly cryptic, irrelevant and obtuse, and to be honest I don't know why you respond. You ignore the substance and simply attack others, without actually providing an alternate viewpoint to consider. This is probably why you mystified my justification of fringe economic activity as if I were not justifying a marginal act as unlikely but rather claiming that the marginal act was the rule. You're unreal! I don't know how you mange to debate this way, but your obtuseness is jarring.

[LeftSideDown]

Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem

1. Rothbard's For a New Liberty - [HTML (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp)|PDF (http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf)]

2. Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson - [HTML (http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/)|PDF (http://fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf)]

The former covers the gamut of right-"libertarian"/"anarcho"-capitalist "theory" and is probably the more satisfying target. (outline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_a_New_Liberty))

The latter is more specifically an economic attack that nobody here would want to defend against; but the arguments used are a goldmine of Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem(outline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson))

These are the two Ad hominems that the Misesites like to use to try to Ad hominem whose curiosity may lead to Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem.

So, if you happen to find yourself with some free time on a rainy day, consider curling up with a Ad hominem and running it through the shredder! Oh, and post your work, so that one day we might compile a complete dismantling of Misesianism 101. :thumbup1:

Fixt.

[Havet]

I want to apologize in advance for any misinterpretation of what you said, but the tone in which you argue with me is not helpful.


Where does that say that "people always act against their interests"? Saying that "people do" is explicitly different than saying that "people always do." Furthermore, this was in repose to your cryptic remark which seemed to indicate that self-interest was not a primary motivation.

How dense are you?

I never remarked that self-interest was not a primary motivation of private business


Right. And this is because people act against their interests in any market. Predominantly, however (and this is key because its the whole fucking point) primarily, people act towards their self interest - for profit regimes are benefited by free-market ideology.

I understand the point (finally) but I don't understand the conclusions.

How is it that the fact that most businesses do not support right-libertarianism/misean economics proof that they act against their own interest? Your conclusion would be correct IF such economic theories were mainstream, and therefore fairly common and talked about. But they are all marginal and fringe elements of the wider theoretical economics spectrum.


This is probably why you mystified my justification of fringe economic activity as if I were not justifying a marginal act as unlikely but rather claiming that the marginal act was the rule. You're unreal! I don't know how you mange to debate this way, but your obtuseness is jarring.

You find me obtuse? I'm still trying to understand that bolded sentence in the above quote. You could do well with sounding less intellectual. You are obviously not promoting discussion, which begs the question: why do you bother to reply to me if you only seek disagreement?

[Dean]

How is it that the fact that most businesses do not support right-libertarianism/misean economics proof that they act against their own interest? Your conclusion would be correct IF such economic theories were mainstream, and therefore fairly common and talked about. But they are all marginal and fringe elements of the wider theoretical economics spectrum.
:laugh: We both know that deregulation, privatization and free market ideology are the primary discussion points in college economics courses, and its no surprise that Clinton and Reagan both furthered this dialogue and implemented policies to that end, as well as Greenspan.


You find me obtuse? I'm still trying to understand that bolded sentence in the above quote. You could do well with sounding less intellectual.
You don't seem to understand a word I post. And I know I'm not using unintelligible grammar.

I think you just want to believe that mutualism is possible. But its not. Its just market primitivism, you want to have a market economy without the inevitable development of the finance sector.

Its not worth trying to discuss anything with you. Go find some more mutualist moralism to post.


You are obviously not promoting discussion, which begs the question: why do you bother to reply to me if you only seek disagreement?
Your flippant one liners promote discussion? You refuse to explain yourself anywhere. You're increasingly cryptic. I am facilitating discussion simply because I am posting substantive arguments. The best you've come up with so far is a baseless assertion re: the fringe character of Mises' nonsense.

[Havet]

:laugh: We both know that deregulation, privatization and free market ideology are the primary discussion points in college economics courses, and its no surprise that Clinton and Reagan both furthered this dialogue and implemented policies to that end, as well as Greenspan.

As I understand it, free-market ideology (like the one of the Mises website) promotes:

-privatization in that it removes a state monopoly, not merely swiches it from the public sector towards the private sector. This has not been the case with
Clinton, Reagan and Greenspan, nor is this debated.
- deregulation of every single market and industry, which hasnt been the case with Clinton, Reagan and Greenspan, nor is this commonly debated

So I don't see any empirical evidence to support your statement.


You don't seem to understand a word I post. And I know I'm not using unintelligible grammar.

I think you just want to believe that mutualism is possible. But its not. Its just market primitivism, you want to have a market economy without the inevitable development of the finance sector.

Its not worth trying to discuss anything with you. Go find some more mutualist moralism to post.

Your flippant one liners promote discussion? You refuse to explain yourself anywhere. You're increasingly cryptic. I am facilitating discussion simply because I am posting substantive arguments. The best you've come up with so far is a baseless assertion re: the fringe character of Mises' nonsense.

I'm still waiting for your replies in the "other "threads...

[Dean]

As I understand it, free-market ideology (like the one of the Mises website) promotes:

-privatization in that it removes a state monopoly, not merely swiches it from the public sector towards the private sector. This has not been the case with
Clinton, Reagan and Greenspan, nor is this debated.
- deregulation of every single market and industry, which hasnt been the case with Clinton, Reagan and Greenspan, nor is this commonly debated
Why were they spouting anti-big-gov't rhetoric while deregulating industries, then?


So I don't see any empirical evidence to support your statement.
That's because you're looking for absolutes, and we both know that this is not an absolutist economy. Miseans call for privatization, as do the major politicians, and thats what they enact. Your defense here is flimsy at best.




I'm still waiting for your replies in the "other "threads...
Which ones?

[Left-Reasoning]

Mises didn't even like mathematics.

Mises didn't like mathematics? Where did you get that impression?

[Left-Reasoning]

so that one day we might compile a complete dismantling of Misesianism 101.

Conflating Mises with vulgar "anarcho"-capitalists does a great disservice to the man.

[Havet]

Why were they spouting anti-big-gov't rhetoric while deregulating industries, then?

Because they're stuck between two paradigms. On one hand, they recognize free-markets as a good model for society. On the other, they cling to corporate apologetic arguments which are not consistent with their premises.


That's because you're looking for absolutes, and we both know that this is not an absolutist economy. Miseans call for privatization, as do the major politicians, and thats what they enact. Your defense here is flimsy at best.

Hey, let me just make this clear. I do not support privatization, and I don't intend to save the miseans. If they call for privatization in the common sense (transfer of a public monopoly to a private sector) then they are idiots. If they call for privatization in the less common sense (dismantling a public monopoly and opening competition by removing the privilege of the previously public company) then I agree.

I know you have come across some stubborn libertarians, just as i've come across some stubborn communists. Don't let that be an impediment in future conversations, and I will try my best to do the same.


Which ones?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/heard-cincinnati-time-t132444/index.html?t=132444

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-free-markets-t132366/index2.html

In all honesty, I think we should work out our communication problems as grown men, Obviously you don't understand what i'm saying, and obviously I don't understand what you're saying. If you really are interested in discussing some of my arguments (as I am interested in discussing some of yours), then we should try to explain to each other as succintly as possible and as patiently as possible each other's views so that discussion can indeed take place.

I know you've come across some stubborn libertarians, just as I've come across some stubborn communists. Don't let that be an impediment, and I will try mt best to do the same.

[Cal Engime]

I've just read Henry Hazlitt's novel Time Will Run Back (http://mises.org/books/time.pdf) and think it would be a more interesting subject of criticism than Economics in One Lesson.

The book is set in the year 2100. The Soviet Union conquered the world long ago, and thanks to the systematic destruction of bourgeois books after the revolution, no one alive knows what capitalism even was other than that it was a horrible state of affairs involving the naked exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. When Peter Uldanov, raised in seclusion by his mother with no exposure to Marx, is chosen by his father Stalenin to succeed him as Dictator of Wonworld, he questions the precepts of the empire's economic system and begins to roll back the reforms, introducing markets and democracy. Much of the book consists of dialogues between Uldanov and a high-ranking member of the Politburo in which they elucidate economic principles which took centuries to discover in reality. The book is largely a vehicle for Hazlitt to illustrate the economic calculation problem, marginal utility theory, the role of profits, and the importance of sound money.

[Dimentio]

I've just read Henry Hazlitt's novel Time Will Run Back (http://mises.org/books/time.pdf) and think it would be a more interesting subject of criticism than Economics in One Lesson.

The book is set in the year 2100. The Soviet Union conquered the world long ago, and thanks to the systematic destruction of bourgeois books after the revolution, no one alive knows what capitalism even was other than that it was a horrible state of affairs involving the naked exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. When Peter Uldanov, raised in seclusion by his mother with no exposure to Marx, is chosen by his father Stalenin to succeed him as Dictator of Wonworld, he questions the precepts of the empire's economic system and begins to roll back the reforms, introducing markets and democracy. Much of the book consists of dialogues between Uldanov and a high-ranking member of the Politburo in which they elucidate economic principles which took centuries to discover in reality. The book is largely a vehicle for Hazlitt to illustrate the economic calculation problem, marginal utility theory, the role of profits, and the importance of sound money.

There are two problems with such books.

1. It is debatable whether or not the Soviet Union represented socialism or a correct implementation of socialism. The devil could lie in the details.

2. The Soviet Union in the mind of bourgeois activists and the real Soviet Union were two entirely different things. The real Soviet Union was a dictatorship and a terribly authoritarian society, yes. But the fictive Soviet Union, where a group of Jewish bolsheviks funded by evil Rotschild bankers took power to exterminate christians and take all their property to live in palaces and even banned the word "I" is basically the feverish nightmare of people who associate themselves with conservative, fascist or libertarian values. Thus, it is impossible to know whether or not they are criticising the real Soviet Union or the imagined one which is far worse.

As for the Soviet Union, it basically fell because of a mixture of nationalism in the republics and the self-interests of the CPSU oligarchy to loot the state apparatus. Most of the Russian people were apathetic during the fall of the Soviet Union.

Command economies have existed before in history, often during regimes much more totalitarian than the Soviet Union. Some of those regimes have held out for millennias. Ancient Egypt, for example, was a command economy where all resources were gathered in state-operated granaries and then distributed to the population. The Incan Empire was a full command economy, issuing clothes, food, jewelry, houses and everything to each imperial subject.

Egypt lasted between 3100 BC and 30 BC, much longer than the Soviet Union, modern America or any other civilisation. Egypt was hardly socialist or egalitarian, but its economic system was the antithesis of free markets and property-based economic systems. It was a command economy, where the power over the resources was in the hands of a bureaucracy under the leadership of a god-king. If the successfulness of civilisations should be measured by longivity, Egypt would own everyone by miles.

Granted, the Incan empire lasted for just a century, before it was cut short by technologically superior invaders. It fell because of technological inferiority it could never have compensated, no matter what system it would have, and not because of its economic system.

[Grozny]

Any newbie poster at mises.org, eager to be indoctrinated, will ask which Unholy Scrolls to flagellate himself with first, and most answers will include the following:

1. Rothbard's For a New Liberty

2. Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson

These are the two Evil Spellbooks that the Misesites like to use to try to snare the hapless kittens...

post your work, so that one day we might compile a complete dismantling of Misesianism 101. :thumbup1:

Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is not Misesian.


My greatest debt, with respect to the kind of expository framework on which the present argument is hung, is to Frederic Bastiat...

My second debt is to Philip Wicksteed...

My third debt is to Ludwig von Mises. Passing over everything that this elementary treatise may owe to his writings in general, my most specific debt is to his exposition of the manner in which the process of monetary inflation is spread.

Hazlitt was a journalist with no training in economics. He consulted Mises on inflation because monetary theory was over his head, but that is incidental to the primary topic of his book, the broken window fallacy, which he got from Bastiat. If you read Hazlitt's book you will see that there is no mention of Mises in the other 90% of his book, most of which consists of articles that he had previously published at the New York Times, the American Scholar and the New Leader.

The Mises Institute are thieves. They are attempting to make themselves the sole source of books and literature on libertarian economics. They do this by sicking their army of ankle-bitters on libertarian authors outside their organization and by stealing the works of dead authors who never had anything to do with their cult.

Hazlitt's book is free. Just Google "Hazlitt Economics in One Lesson" and it comes up first. There's no reason to go through those thieves at the Mises Institute.


Know your enemy and know yourself and you will be victorious in a hundred battles.

You don't know your enemy.

[LeftSideDown]

Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is not Misesian.



Hazlitt was a journalist with no training in economics. He consulted Mises on inflation because monetary theory was over his head, but that is incidental to the primary topic of his book, the broken window fallacy, which he got from Bastiat. If you read Hazlitt's book you will see that there is no mention of Mises in the other 90% of his book, most of which consists of articles that he had previously published at the New York Times, the American Scholar and the New Leader.

The Mises Institute are thieves. They are attempting to make themselves the sole source of books and literature on libertarian economics. They do this by sicking their army of ankle-bitters on libertarian authors outside their organization and by stealing the works of dead authors who never had anything to do with their cult.

Hazlitt's book is free. Just Google "Hazlitt Economics in One Lesson" and it comes up first. There's no reason to go through those thieves at the Mises Institute.



You don't know your enemy.

Most books they offer free on the Mises website. I know for a fact they offer America's Great Depression and Socialism for free.

[Cal Engime]

The Mises Institute offers all of the books they publish (many of which would not be in print otherwise) for free on their website because they want to get their message out, and because they have found that this increases sales. I hardly think it's appropriate to call them "thieves" for publishing an edition of Economics in One Lesson.

[anticap]

Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is not Misesian.

The above quotation is utterly irrelevant to the one you wrote it in response to.

[Salyut]

Can we find some quotations about the optics stuff? I wanna see this insanity.

[anticap]

Can we find some quotations about the optics stuff? I wanna see this insanity.

It's just hearsay (http://web.archive.org/web/20060220014815/http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/63palmer.html) from Palmer (http://tomgpalmer.com/) about a lecture he attended. I suppose you could contact him and ask if he took notes, or what the exact date was (there may be a recording). You could also scour the Hoppe section (http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&ID=164) at LvMI, and his personal site (http://www.hanshoppe.com/); but I doubt you'll find a solid record of him making this claim, given how insane it is. Then again, the man is a lunatic, and not known for being careful about what he says on the record.

Edit: I found this comment (http://blog.mises.org/9113/access-to-energy/#comment-485136) by Hoppe defender Stephan Kinsella (December 17, 2008 at 12:25 pm), which seems to be completely irrelevant, since Palmer claims to have heard Hoppe make the statement in a lecture, not to have read it in one of his books.

Edit 2: Here's the archived link (http://web.archive.org/web/20061126083252/http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/2005/02/more_palmer_hop.html) to Kinsella's blog, which he refers to in his comment. The comment is a copy/paste from that blog post. In it, he references this piece (http://web.archive.org/web/20080526024216/http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018573.php) by Palmer, wherein he tells the story again, in a comment (February 9, 2005 8:05 PM). Palmer says that Hoppe's response to his raising the point that optics has been a rigorous science for thousands of years, was to say that he wasn't going to waste his time with people who were too stupid to understand and who didn't listen. :lol:

[Salyut]

a bit off topic, but i’m curious as to your thoughts on hoppe’s criticisms of general relativity and quantum mechanics (admittedly from a philosophical/foundational basis, as opposed to a mathematical/technical basis).


lolwut

[Grozny]

The Mises Institute offers all of the books they publish (many of which would not be in print otherwise) for free on their website because they want to get their message out, and because they have found that this increases sales. I hardly think it's appropriate to call them "thieves" for publishing an edition of Economics in One Lesson.

Henry Hazlitt was an honorable man who, during his lifetime, would never have allowed his book to be used as a recruiting tool by some sleazy cult.

In 1946 Mises was just a guy. No cult had yet formed around him. Hazlitt was only doing his job as a journalist when he consulted a professor for help on one chapter (about inflation) that was over his head. He consulted other professors about other chapters. That's what journalists do. He was NOT a cultist.

[Skooma Addict]

If anything, there is an anti-Mises cult. You guys are more obsessed with Mises than any single group of people I have ever met.

[Grozny]

Can we find some quotations about the optics stuff? I wanna see this insanity.

Here is a more extensive quotation:


I was introduced by the [Washington State University] chairman of the department of economics to some graduate students whom he termed "our former Austrians." One might ask why the graduate students there called themselves "former Austrians." One name suffices to answer the question: Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Dr. Hoppe, leading light of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, had presented such a loopy, absurd and utterly unhinged picture of Austrian economics at a public lecture there, under the sponsorship of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, that those graduate students felt obliged to distinguish themselves publicly from such a strange and incomprehensible set of views. And I can certainly understand why they would feel compelled to do that. If Hoppe is the leading light of Austrian economics as the Mises Institute presents him, then Austrian economics should prepare for a long dark age. At George Mason University I saw Hoppe present a lecture in which he claimed that Ludwig von Mises had set the intellectual foundation for not only economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics, as well. This bizarre claim turned a serious scholar and profound thinker into a comical cult figure, a sort of Euro Kim Il Sung....

One could go on with examples of how Hoppe and the Mises Institute have proven embarrassing to the Austrian economists by whom they claim to be inspired but what would be the point? Those who have had contact with him know that Hoppe is an intellectual bully and an academic disgrace. I was cautioned by a friend not to criticize Hoppe, on the grounds that one should never wrestle with a pig. I have not followed that advice. That may turn out to be unwise especially considering Hoppe's record for heaping abuse on those with whom he disagrees....

I can only guess at the vituperation and slander that Hoppe and Rockwell must be preparing for me, as well as for anyone else who might voice doubts about their bizarre cult.

This is an excerpt from a longer paper that Palmer posted at Liberty Soft. I excerpted from it and linked to the source (unlike the Mises Institute, who are thieves, I ALWAYS cite my sources) and a day later Liberty Soft deleted Palmer's paper. I guess they found it embarrassing. ;)

I contacted Palmer and asked him if he had the complete paper and if I could post it on my website. He agreed, but then was unable to locate it on his computer, as it had been years since he wrote it. So the complete paper is lost. :(

[Grozny]

Mises didn't like mathematics? Where did you get that impression?

Here.


Ludwig von Mises was not a mathematician – he actually despised us – but, in his own vague way, he made the same claim about money. Money is valued today because it had value yesterday and it had value yesterday because it had value the day before. In this way, Mises’ Regression Theorem traces the value of money back to when it had value primarily for its use. But that is as far as he got; not being a mathematician, he had no way of knowing that the distribution of people’s valuations of their first unit of the monetary unit is log-normally distributed.

I went beyond Mises by recognizing that his Regression Theorem is not a theorem but an axiom and that it applies to all phenomena, not just money. When I wrote a letter of introduction to Murray Rothbard in 1993, I fully expected the Austrians to recognize that I was extending Mises’ rudimentary work and applaud me for doing so. How naïve! The Austrians have enough hatred in them to feed seven hells. To this day I am appalled by the ferocity of their attacks on me. Oh well – ferocity is meaningless if it is not accompanied by effectiveness.This is from my Non-Mathematical Explanation of the Axioms, which you can find on my website directly below the axioms, which are listed at the top of my home page.

[Left-Reasoning]

Here.

Quoting yourself doesn't count. :P


This is from my Non-Mathematical Explanation of the Axioms, which you can find on my website directly below the axioms, which are listed at the top of my home page.

I've never understood why the Austrians are so hostile to you, Mr. Aguilar.

[Cal Engime]

Henry Hazlitt was an honorable man who, during his lifetime, would never have allowed his book to be used as a recruiting tool by some sleazy cult.Henry Hazlitt, a founding board member of the Mises Institute, wouldn't have spoken for the dead.
In 1946 Mises was just a guy. No cult had yet formed around him. Hazlitt was only doing his job as a journalist when he consulted a professor for help on one chapter (about inflation) that was over his head. He consulted other professors about other chapters. That's what journalists do. He was NOT a cultist.In an interview published in the Spring 1984 issue of the Austrian Economics Newsletter, Hazlitt recalls how he met Mises:
Sometime in 1940 I got a telephone call. The voice on the other end said “This is Mises speaking.” As I've told many of my friends since, it was as if someone had called and said, “This is John Stuart Mill speaking.” I had referred to Mises as “a classic,” Socialism] and you don't expect a classic to call you on the telephone! Anyway, that led to our acquaintance.Hazlitt's earliest letters to Mises bear the salutation "Professor Mises," but he felt comfortable with "Dear Ludwig" by July 1942 and "Dear Lou" by December 1942. It was Hazlitt who recommended that Yale University Press publish Mises's books Omnipotent Government and Bureaucracy in 1944, and Hazlitt was among the people Mises thanked in the foreword to his magnum opus Human Action: "To my friend Henry Hazlitt I wish to offer my very special thanks for his kindness in reading the manuscript and giving me most valuable suggestions about it." The most cursory research would have shown that Mises was a close friend of Hazlitt, not some random professor with expertise in monetary theory.
(unlike the Mises Institute, who are thieves, I ALWAYS cite my sources)Huh? Is "by Henry Hazlitt" not sufficient citation?

I'd like to see you cite a source on the Mises Institute being thieves.

[Grozny]

Henry Hazlitt, a founding board member of the Mises Institute

Hazlitt founded the Mises Institute at the age of 88? I don't think so.

If you read the "affiliations" section of the Wikipedia article on Hazlitt, it says nothing about the Mises Institute. Rockwell probably just put Hazlitt's name on their letterhead because he knew that Hazlitt was in an nursing home and was too senile to know that Rockwell was using his name for personal gain.


I'd like to see you cite a source on the Mises Institute being thieves.

I don't have 25 posts at RevLeft yet. When I do, I'll provide some links to material the Mises Institute copied off my website without citing it.


The most cursory research would have shown that Mises was a close friend of Hazlitt.


In 1946 Mises was just a guy. No cult had yet formed around him. Hazlitt was only doing his job as a journalist when he consulted a professor for help on one chapter (about inflation) that was over his head. He consulted other professors about other chapters. That's what journalists do. He was NOT a cultist.

In 1946 Mises was just a guy. He and Hazlitt may very well have been friends. But that has nothing to do with this sleazy cult that was formed 40 years later at a time when Mises was dead and Hazlitt was being spoon-fed in a nursing home.

Mises was dead when the Mises Institute was formed. What evidence do you have that Mises would have approved of this cult using his name? You cannot even prove that his friends from 40 years past approved of the cult.

[Robert]

If anything, there is an anti-Mises cult. You guys are more obsessed with Mises than any single group of people I have ever met.

Say it again. They remind me of gay bashers whose obsession with homosexuality can only mean one thing ....:lol:

[Cal Engime]

Between 1983 and 1987, Hazlitt published 16 articles, gave 2 interviews, and edited two books, so I'm sure he was quite capable of taking an active interest in the Mises Institute. What evidence is there that Hazlitt didn't know anything about it?

I don't think anyone can say for sure what Mises would have thought of his "cult," but I do know that Mrs. Mises gave it her blessing and served as chairman until her death at 103. Do you think Ludwig wouldn't approve of the work the Mises Institute does? He regarded the "intellectual battle" against socialism and interventionism as a vocation, almost like a priesthood. He was conflicted over whether to marry Margit because he didn't want to be distracted from his life's work.

[anticap]

[Mises] regarded the [concocting of apologetics for the ruling class, and of arguments] against [the democratic control by the producers over the means of production] ... as a vocation, almost like a priesthood. He was conflicted over whether to [let love into his life] because he didn't want to be distracted from his [hatred of the working class].

Wow, he sounds like a real peach.

[Cal Engime]

That's one way of looking at it. :lol:

[LeftSideDown]

The funny thing is that that IS probably how he sees it.

[anticap]

The funny thing is that that IS probably how he sees it.

Who? Mises? Yes, I think probably so.

No, you mean me, of course. But in fact I merely translated the quote into what it actually said:

1. "Socialism" means "the democratic control by the producers over the means of production."

2. Mises's "'intellectual battle' against socialism" consisted of the "concocting of apologetics for the ruling class, and of arguments [against] the democratic control by the producers over the means of production."

3. The fact that he would actually consider not marrying the woman he loved (and remember that at that time, marriage was all but mandatory if love was to be consummated and a relationship legitimated), in order that he not be distracted from the above, suggests a level of devotion that can only have been borne out of a deeper love or a deeper hate. Given the content of his life's work, we can deduce that he deeply loved the ruling class and deeply hated the working class.

And that accounts for all my bracketing.

This shit ain't rocket science. It's simply reading with both eyes open.

[Grozny]

Mises didn't like mathematics? Where did you get that impression?


The mathematical method must be rejected not only on account of its barrenness. It is an entirely vicious method, starting from false assumptions and leading to fallacious inferences.... There is no such thing as quantitative economics.

Mises’ praxeological method was a failure but it can at least be considered a forerunner of this author’s axiomatic method. While Mises never provides us with a concise statement of his postulate set, his repeated use of the phrase “action axiom” eventually leads one to believe that it means something like this author’s axioms one and two (1999, pp. xxiii-xxiv). And his regression theorem can be considered a special case of this author’s third axiom, which asserts that the value of the first unit of anything (not just money) changes each day by a proportion of the previous day’s value.

Thus, Mises came remarkably close to the starting point of Axiomatic Theory of Economics. Had he been a better mathematician he might have resolved his murky “action axiom” into a clear enumeration of what is known about marginal utility and a statement that value is a total ordering. Also, he might have recognized regression as an axiom applying to everything, not just a theorem applying only to money, though he would have first had to reject originary interest, since this axiom is a generalization of calculating interest as a percentage of the amount owed. Alas, he did not and economists had to wait fifty more years for a well-defined postulate set.

Pre-WWII Hayekians did not use very much math but, then, neither did Keynes or most other economists. After the war, at a time when mainstream economists were trying to emulate physicists, Austrians went math-free on the advice of Ludwig Mises ([1949] 1966). As Skousen has recorded (2001, pp. 290-291), this was largely a result of a sibling rivalry between Ludwig and his brother Richard, a famous probability theorist (1981).

Ironically, Richard Mises’ principle rival in probability was Kolmogorov, who gave an axiomatic foundation for the theory of probability (1956). Kolmogorov won; it is he, not Richard Mises, who is now considered the founder of modern probability theory. This is ironic because Kolmogorov’s axiomatic method is actually very similar to Ludwig Mises’ praxeological method. The difference, of course, is that Kolmogorov’s axioms are productive while Mises’ axiom, the proposition that humans act, is really just a platitude. Hoppe writes, “This axiom, the proposition that humans act, fulfills the requirements precisely for a true synthetic a priori proposition. It cannot be denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action – and so the truth of the statement literally cannot be undone” (1995, p. 22). Thus, caught in this catch-22 situation, we must all be Misesians – or be dead. To acknowledge that people act (as opposed to what?) is to accept all of Mises’ theory, including originary interest and the works. This is rather like being asked, “Are you taking your antipsychotic medication?” There is no way to answer the question directly without implicitly admitting that one is psychotic.

Who ever heard of an axiomatic system with only one axiom? There are only postulate sets (e.g. Euclid has five, Kolmogorov has five and this author has three). But Ludwig Mises knew nothing about mathematicians and denounced them all, making no distinction between axiomatists like Kolmogorov and positivists like his brother. Thus having missed a splendid opportunity to team up with his brother’s rival, Ludwig Mises’ embryonic vision would lie dormant for half a century before the axiomatic method would find its champion in economics.


I've never understood why the Austrians are so hostile to you, Mr. Aguilar.

The Mises Institute hates me because I am a mathematician.

[Cal Engime]

the proposition that humans act, is really just a platitude. ... To acknowledge that people act (as opposed to what?) is to accept all of Mises’ theory, including originary interest and the works.So basically, you believe that the action axiom is necessarily true, even trite, and therefore you agree with Mises about everything that follows from it?

[LeftSideDown]

Who? Mises? Yes, I think probably so.

No, you mean me, of course. But in fact I merely translated the quote into what it actually said:

You're entitled to your opinion.


1. "Socialism" means "the democratic control by the producers over the means of production."

Not necessarily. Surely you recognize there are different forms of socialism: christian socialism, syndicalist, nationalization. The best definition of Socialism would be simply "No privately owned means of production" as this pretty much encompasses all the different forms and varieties of socialism.


2. Mises's "'intellectual battle' against socialism" consisted of the "concocting of apologetics for the ruling class, and of arguments [against] the democratic control by the producers over the means of production."

This is like saying that, because someone thinks humanity is a positive entity that they support murderers. I am not trying to deny that capitalism entails entrepreneurs and a degree of concentration of wealth, I am saying that by believing capitalism to be the only form of an economy that can make rational economic decisions you do not have to be an apologetic for the ruling class. Just like by supporting humanity you do not have to be an apologetic for murders.


3. The fact that he would actually consider not marrying the woman he loved (and remember that at that time, marriage was all but mandatory if love was to be consummated and a relationship legitimated), in order that he not be distracted from the above, suggests a level of devotion that can only have been borne out of a deeper love or a deeper hate. Given the content of his life's work, we can deduce that he deeply loved the ruling class and deeply hated the working class.

There is no "we can deduce". Thats what you deduce individually. Perhaps others agree with you, perhaps not. Surely you are not attacking Mises because he was dedicated to his work, are you? To me, at least, that just seems silly.

[Agnapostate]

I believe the ones who do think he is a socialist think that he implements policies which are not socialist

That's about as intelligent as any of their other stances, but in this case, they're actually correct in that he implements anti-socialist policies. Governmental intervention in the capitalist economy is in fact anti-socialist because of its role in provision of macroeconomic stabilization.


Are you telling me that I give guitar lessons to my cousin for 5 euros per session, against my own interests?

I don't think so. Try again.

Economic agents are generally not utility maximizers, but utility satisficers, i.e. they do not attempt to maximize utility to the utmost extent, but instead to an extent that they deem sufficient. This is due to the constrictions of bounded rationality (we have limited knowledge and time in decision-making), which anyone interested in Hayekian knowledge theory should be aware of, as a related information/knowledge problem.

For example, a person might give free guitar lessons to his cousin since he is family and does not consider it necessary to maximize total possible profits, instead being satisfied with helping his cousin develop musical talents.


If that were true, then all capitalist firms would support right-libertarian/"misean" free-market economic theories. But they don't (unless you can provide me with proof that they do. I thought right-libertarian/misean economic theory was a fringe/marginalist spectrum of economic theories).

Capitalist firms are dependent on state interventionism for their continued existence; their unrestrained support of Austrian ideology would lead to the collapse of many of them, and destabilization that would threaten corporate profits. Their selective support of "vulgar libertarian" endorsements of corporatism (which abounds in the Austrian school, marginal as it is), is sufficient, though alignment with neoclassicals is far more strategic, given the history of their actual influence on policy.


Fixt.

An ad homimen is a criticism of an irrelevant personal characteristic of an opponent. Were there such logical fallacies in his post, or were you simply regurgitating the common misconception that "attacks = ad hominems"?


I contacted Palmer and asked him if he had the complete paper and if I could post it on my website. He agreed, but then was unable to locate it on his computer, as it had been years since he wrote it. So the complete paper is lost. :(

You didn't look hard enough. There's a more complete version than what you've assembled here (http://letters.mobile.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/06/world_opinion/permalink/541dc5dcb9584cd898fa00e2ac96e0d9.html).


I've never understood why the Austrians are so hostile to you, Mr. Aguilar.

He's a mentally unhinged idiot who spams every board on the Internet with his moronic garbage and inane conspiracy theories.

[Havet]

For example, a person might give free guitar lessons to his cousin since he is family and does not consider it necessary to maximize total possible profits, instead being satisfied with helping his cousin develop musical talents.

Oh certainly, that was also an option. But since my time was limited (with university) both parties (me and my uncle and aunt) agreed on a price. You do agree, though, that the trade is occuring because it satisfies both entity's self-interest (my cousin/uncle/aunt's interest and my own)?


Capitalist firms are dependent on state interventionism for their continued existence; their unrestrained support of Austrian ideology would lead to the collapse of many of them, and destabilization that would threaten corporate profits. Their selective support of "vulgar libertarian" endorsements of corporatism (which abounds in the Austrian school, marginal as it is), is sufficient, though alignment with neoclassicals is far more strategic, given the history of their actual influence on policy.

Well said.

[Agnapostate]

Oh certainly, that was also an option. But since my time was limited (with university) both parties (me and my uncle and aunt) agreed on a price. You do agree, though, that the trade is occuring because it satisfies both entity's self-interest (my cousin/uncle/aunt's interest and my own)?

We're obviously not just talking about you; we're talking about the general tendency towards utility maximization. But even in your example, it's possible that you could have extracted a higher lesson fee, but chose not to because your aunt and uncle were involved and you were satisfied with what you got.

[Havet]

We're obviously not just talking about you; we're talking about the general tendency towards utility maximization. But even in your example, it's possible that you could have extracted a higher lesson fee, but chose not to because your aunt and uncle were involved and you were satisfied with what you got.

Well, here's the funny part (in my example):

I layed out a "business plan" wherein I would charge until certain goals were achieved by my cousin. Some of these goals include: "learning to play simple notes", "learnign the pentagonic scale", "learning how to play a full music", "learning how to tune a guitar", etc.

The highest of these goals would go around 3€. And I would ONLY receive money if my cousin had achieved a certain goal.

The thing is, after a while, my aunt and uncle noticed how i was spending too much time to teach my cousin to learn a certain goal without immediate results. I didn't mind, but for some reason they thought it was "unfair" (a subjective evaluation by their part, keep in mind).

So we agreed that I would receive around 5€ for each 1.30/2h session, regardless of the goals being achieved. Of course, i make sure they know how my cousin is performing.

So in my case, I did not extract anything

[Dean]

Well, here's the funny part (in my example):

I layed out a "business plan" wherein I would charge until certain goals were achieved by my cousin. Some of these goals include: "learning to play simple notes", "learnign the pentagonic scale", "learning how to play a full music", "learning how to tune a guitar", etc.

The highest of these goals would go around 3€. And I would ONLY receive money if my cousin had achieved a certain goal.

The thing is, after a while, my aunt and uncle noticed how i was spending too much time to teach my cousin to learn a certain goal without immediate results. I didn't mind, but for some reason they thought it was "unfair" (a subjective evaluation by their part, keep in mind).

So we agreed that I would receive around 5€ for each 1.30/2h session, regardless of the goals being achieved. Of course, i make sure they know how my cousin is performing.

So in my case, I did not extract anything
...simply because you are personally playing market games which don't in any way reflect the conditions, incentives and driving forces in a free market.

LTV works great if we are talking about a critique of the economy or a socialist paradigm. However, it fails to account for the actual currency extracted from consumers. Supply and Demand indicates the markets ability to bear costs for products - in this case, its quite possible that an activity requiring very little costs on your part could be used as a point of leverage, assuming your skills are fairly rare. This is a very basic incentive one might have in any trade economy to expand economic power. Who wouldn't want to do it?

[Skooma Addict]

That's about as intelligent as any of their other stances, but in this case, they're actually correct in that he implements anti-socialist policies. Governmental intervention in the capitalist economy is in fact anti-socialist because of its role in provision of macroeconomic stabilization.

You could have at least quoted everything I said. I have seen you claim that the government is required for macroeconomic stabilization in a capitalist economy, but I have never seen any explanation (by you) for why his is the case. So please explain.

[Agnapostate]

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=kubha

[Skooma Addict]

?

[Agnapostate]

So in my case, I did not extract anything

You did not, because you did not seek the maximum possible price. The lack of market competition involved in the transaction influenced your ability to even discover what the maximum possible price even was, for that matter. Therefore, you did not maximize utility


You could have

You might be very surprised at the profound differences between my capabilities and my willingness to exercise them.

[anticap]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around charging a fee for the lessons. Why not teach your cousin to play guitar because you want to share the gift of music with someone you care for? :confused:

[Skooma Addict]

You might be very surprised at the profound differences between my capabilities and my willingness to exercise them.

Well I am obviously surprised when someone only quotes half of a relevant statement. So about that whole macroeconomic stabilization thing?

[Agnapostate]

Well I am obviously surprised

Obviously.

I've entered exchanges with you before. They've always ended with your repetition of assertions previously rebutted, instead of the formulation of new counter-arguments, at which point I leave the threads in question.

[Havet]

You did not, because you did not seek the maximum possible price. The lack of market competition involved in the transaction influenced your ability to even discover what the maximum possible price even was, for that matter. Therefore, you did not maximize utility

Well there was market competition alright. there are plenty of guitar teachers out there, most of them 100x more professional than me. The fact is that:

-i'm cheaper
-i'm geographically closer
-i have proven my "trustworthyness"

[Havet]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around charging a fee for the lessons. Why not teach your cousin to play guitar because you want to share the gift of music with someone you care for? :confused:

- it takes too much time to teach
- i have limited time available
- money covers the cost of my limited time

[anticap]

- it takes too much time to teach
- i have limited time available

We all have limited time available, yet I've taught several people to play guitar, and none of them were quick studies.

Don't you derive pleasure from watching someone learn to make music, and from seeing the look on their face when they're finally able to play well enough to get "that feeling" that you get when you play?


- money covers the cost of my limited time

This only makes sense under "cash nexus" logic.

I guess that's ultimately what it boils down to: our fundamentally different worldviews.

P.S. If you believe that all of your time is worth a certain figure, then the Sandman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandman) is robbing you blind!

Anyway sorry for the interruption. I didn't mean to come off as judgmental, I just genuinely don't understand the logic. Carry on with whatever conversation my thread has devolved into.

[Cal Engime]

Economic agents are generally not utility maximizers, but utility satisficers, i.e. they do not attempt to maximize utility to the utmost extent, but instead to an extent that they deem sufficient. This is due to the constrictions of bounded rationality (we have limited knowledge and time in decision-making), which anyone interested in Hayekian knowledge theory should be aware of, as a related information/knowledge problem.

For example, a person might give free guitar lessons to his cousin since he is family and does not consider it necessary to maximize total possible profits, instead being satisfied with helping his cousin develop musical talents.People do not maximise "total utility" because utility cannot be totaled. It is not a cardinal quantity, therefore it cannot be added. Total utility is only evaluated if I have to choose between all of my possessions together and something else (Eternal salvation? Escape from a tyrannical country? Running away from home as a child?). However, people do always choose something of greater utility over something of lesser utility. It is fantastic nonsense to assert that there is a point where people will forsake rational decision-making because they do not wish to acquire further wealth; certainly the great economic progress of the last 10,000 years has not brought us to such a point. One who has satisfied his urgent wants will always proceed to satisfy his less urgent wants.

Your example seems to conflate utility with monetary profit, but maybe you're just saying that while I benefit from the satisfaction derived from helping a family member, I benefit more from that satisfaction and five dollars. If somebody chooses not to take money for a service when it could be obtained, we must conclude that taking money lessens the satisfaction he would feel from his own altruism. There is no basis to say that someone's utility would actually be maximised by money if they do not choose it.

[Skooma Addict]

Obviously.

I've entered exchanges with you before. They've always ended with your repetition of assertions previously rebutted, instead of the formulation of new counter-arguments, at which point I leave the threads in question.

This is what you say, but you are wrong. Do I really have to go over this again? You failed to refute my claim that large hierarchical firms enjoy certain natural advantages over small and/or more "equal" firms. You also failed to give a moral argument for the validity of utilitarianism and offered no support for the doctrine which has not been refuted previously many times. That is all I can remember off the top of my head.

The fact that you refuse to expand on the point you made makes me believe you can't defend it very well.

[anticap]

I've entered exchanges with you before. They've always ended with your repetition of assertions previously rebutted, instead of the formulation of new counter-arguments....

This is what you say, but you are wrong.

Nope, I'm going to agree with Agnapostate's assessment of your style of "argumentation," which I've also criticized you for. It seems to be your M.O.

[Havet]

We all have limited time available, yet I've taught several people to play guitar, and none of them were quick studies.

Don't you derive pleasure from watching someone learn to make music, and from seeing the look on their face when they're finally able to play well enough to get "that feeling" that you get when you play?

I know what you are saying, and I know exactly how you feel, since I feel that too many times. I have taught many people how to play, but usually they give up practicing after the first lessons. I just found that setting up a price is better to know who really wants to go forward with it.

As my special treat, first lessons are always free :D


This only makes sense under "cash nexus" logic.

Not really. I could accept something else instead of cash. It's just that my cousin/uncle/aunt don't have something i really want, so we just use money.


Anyway sorry for the interruption. I didn't mean to come off as judgmental, I just genuinely don't understand the logic. Carry on with whatever conversation my thread has devolved into.

hakuna matata

[anticap]

This only makes sense under "cash nexus" logic.Not really. I could accept something else instead of cash. It's just that my cousin/uncle/aunt don't have something i really want, so we just use money.


I didn't mean it in the literal sense of cash, but in the sense of exchange-logic in general, as you describe. I shouldn't have used the quote -- but I love it so! :wub:

Anyway, if you're interested, it's originally from Carlyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Carlyle)'s Chartism (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chartism):


In Charity-Balls, Soup-Kitchens, in Quarter-Sessions, Prison-Discipline and Treadmills, we can well believe the old Feudal Aristocracy not to have surpassed the new. Yet we do say that the old Aristocracy were the governors of the Lower Classes, the guides of the Lower Classes; and even, at bottom, that they existed as an Aristocracy because they were found adequate for that. Not by Charity-Balls and Soup-Kitchens; not so; far otherwise! But it was their happiness that, in struggling for their own objects, they had to govern the Lower Classes, even in this sense of governing. For, in one word, Cash Payment had not then grown to be the universal sole nexus of man to man; it was something other than money that the high then expected from the low, and could not live without getting from the low. Not as buyer and seller alone, of land or what else it might be, but in many senses still as soldier and captain, as clansman and head, as loyal subject and guiding king, was the low related to the high. With the supreme triumph of Cash, a changed time has entered; there must a changed Aristocracy enter.

[...]

O reader, to what shifts is poor Society reduced, struggling to give still some account of herself, in epochs when Cash Payment has become the sole nexus of man to men! On the whole, we will advise Society not to talk at all about what she exists for; but rather with her whole industry to exist, to try how she can keep existing! That is her best plan. She may depend upon it, if she ever, by cruel chance, did come to exist only for protection of breeches-pocket property, she would lose very soon the gift of protecting even that, and find her career in our lower world on the point of terminating!—

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chartism/Chapter_VI

In these complicated times, with Cash Payment as the sole nexus between man and man, the Toiling Classes of mankind declare, in their confused but most emphatic way, to the Untoiling, that they will be governed; that they must,—under penalty of Chartisms, Thuggeries, Rick-burnings, and even blacker things than those. Vain also is it to think that the misery of one class, of the great universal under class, can be isolated, and kept apart and peculiar, down in that class. By infallible contagion, evident enough to reflection, evident even to Political Economy that will reflect, the misery of the lowest spreads upwards and upwards till it reaches the very highest; till all has grown miserable, palpably false and wrong; and poor drudges hungering 'on meal-husks and boiled grass' do, by circuitous but sure methods, bring kings' heads to the block!

Cash Payment the sole nexus; and there are so many things which cash will not pay! Cash is a great miracle; yet it has not all power in Heaven, nor even on Earth. 'Supply and demand' we will honour also; and yet how many 'demands' are there, entirely indispensable, which have to go elsewhere than to the shops, and produce quite other than cash, before they can get their supply?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chartism/Chapter_VII

Engels later quotes Carlyle in The Condition of the Working Class in England (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/):


The relation of the manufacturer to his operatives has nothing human in it; it is purely economic. The manufacturer is Capital, the operative Labour. And if the operative will not be forced into this abstraction, if he insists that he is not Labour, but a man, who possesses, among other things, the attribute of labour-force, if he takes it into his head that he need not allow himself to be sold and bought in the market, as the commodity "Labour", the bourgeois reason comes to a standstill. He cannot comprehend that he holds any other relation to the operatives than that of purchase and sale; he sees in them not human beings, but hands, as he constantly calls them to their faces; he insists, as Carlyle says, that "Cash Payment is the only nexus between man and man."

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm

It then makes its way into the Communist Manifesto (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/):


The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

[Skooma Addict]

Nope, I'm going to agree with Agnapostate's assessment of your style of "argumentation," which I've also criticized you for. It seems to be your M.O.

As if your agreement somehow settled the matter. At least I provided examples.

[Dean]

This is what you say, but you are wrong. Do I really have to go over this again? You failed to refute my claim that large hierarchical firms enjoy certain natural advantages over small and/or more "equal" firms.

Yep, the centralization of economic power is indeed a more efficient model of profit-acquisition. Capitalism must evolve into a hyper-hierarchical system representative of the interests of an increasingly marginal population.

Egalitarian firms provide their members with self-determination and real economic liberty. But that isn't the goal, anyways, is it?

[anticap]

As if your agreement somehow settled the matter.

I can't imagine what gave you the impression that I thought that it did. I simply agreed with the assessment, because it's been my experience as well.