The Fallacy of Austrian Welfare Theory & Socialist Calculation Problem

[Dean]

While Rothbard and Mises had similar objections to mainstream utility theory, Rothbard went one step further by "reconstructing" welfare economics along Austrian lines. His main conclusions are simple and austere: every market transaction benefits all participants, while every act of government intervention benefits some people at the expense of others. Rothbard goes on to make a seemingly stronger claim: "If we allow ourselves to use the term 'society' to depict the pattern of all individual exchanges, then we may say that the free market 'maximizes' social utility, since everyone gains in utility."[20] This claim might be re-phrased to say simply that each voluntary exchange benefits all participants, and the free market permits the implementation of all desired voluntary exchanges.


Hans-Hermann Hoppe, arguing for Rothbard's approach, makes a subtly stronger claim: "Pareto-optimality is not only compatible with methodological individualism; together with the notion of demonstrated preference, it also provides the key to (Austrian) welfare economics and its proof that the free market, operating according to the rules just described, always, and invariably so, increases social utility, while each deviation from it decreases it."[21] (emphasis mine) Strictly speaking, however, Rothbard could only claim the welfare effects of government intervention upon "social utility" are indeterminate; i.e., since the victim loses and the intervener gains, it is impossible to say anything about social utility without making a verboten interpersonal welfare comparison. This is an important point, because it shows that Rothbard's welfare economics provides a much weaker defense of the free market than usually assumed. In particular, Rothbard's own theory strips him of the ability to call any act of government "inefficient." By denying the ability to endorse state action in the name of efficiency, Rothbard also implicitly denies the ability to reject state action in the name of efficiency. This is no logical flaw in Rothbard's theory (although it does reveal a logical flaw in Hoppe's presentation of Rothbard's theory), but it's political implications are rather different than commonly assumed: Rothbard's welfare criterion justifies agnosticism about - not denial of - the benefits of statism.
(My Emphasis)


"Why I am not an Austrian Economist"

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm


This has some more interesting criticisms, notably the rejection of continuity which must culminate in a total rejection of calculus in economics:

Quoting Rothbard, "[H]uman beings act on the basis of things that are relevant to their action. The human being cannot see the infinitely small step; it therefore has no meaning to him and no relevance to his action."[16] The implications are broader than they may initially appear, because as a mathematician will tell you, you can't differentiate a function that isn't continuous. This means that if Mises and Rothbard is correct, the pervasive use of calculus in economics must be rejected in toto.


And in particular on the issue of socialism:



This suggests some obvious questions. Does Crusoe's one-man socialism become "impossible" when Friday shows up? Hardly. What if 100 people show up? 1000? Mises' distinction between a modern economy and Crusoe's, and why the economic calculation argument applies only to the former, again shows that Mises has underlying quantitative assumptions in spite of his strictures against them. He is making a quantitative judgment that the lack of calculation would not greatly worsen Crusoe's economy, but would devastate a modern economy. Perhaps Mises was right, but pure economic theory did not give him the answer.



Ever since Mises, Austrians have overused the economic calculation argument. In the absence of detailed empirical evidence showing that this particular problem is the most important one, it is just another argument out of hundreds on the list of arguments against socialism. How do we know that the problem of work effort, or innovation, or the underground economy, or any number of other problems were not more important than the calculation problem?


Perhaps our resident Austrian-minded thinkers could critique these points.

[Left-Reasoning]

Caplan is correct.

Though personally I found his thoughts on indifference curves much more fascinating.

[Nolan]

Then there's the issue that what they described has nothing to do with why there is no USSR today.

[Left-Reasoning]

Then there's the issue that what they described has nothing to do with why there is no USSR today.

Explain.

[Dean]

Then there's the issue that what they described has nothing to do with why there is no USSR today.

I know the USSR was a centralized model of economic organization (that is it was not socialist) but I'm not so sure on exactly how the system was set up - besides that it was "state capitalist" and the central committee and other power aggregations utilized standard business models and cost-benefit analyses in the furtherance of their economic aims.

What exactly did you mean by this?

[anticap]

Here's a debate between Caplan and Boettke (can't remember if it's interesting or not, just posting FYI):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPm5wDjaOSk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxtEfOlaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2oGMP1w3mU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzTlzsyg9TM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH0psheNBvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVSVOEnofZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5D5OvNtkY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6fruWDp660
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVvr3BDKq-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uluzACocbX0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5qUm-zNyCU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRQ6gw0B5so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvyo-TJ5Kr4


(I figured I shouldn't embed 13 vids.)

[Nolan]

I know the USSR was a centralized model of economic organization (that is it was not socialist) but I'm not so sure on exactly how the system was set up - besides that it was "state capitalist" and the central committee and other power aggregations utilized standard business models and cost-benefit analyses in the furtherance of their economic aims.

That's part of what I'm referring to, actually.

Austrians and others on the internet love to treat the notion that the Soviet Union fell because of the calculation problem as a kind of sacred cow, when in fact central planning had been dumped long before.

[Dean]

Here's a debate between Caplan and Boettke (can't remember if it's interesting or not, just posting FYI):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPm5wDjaOSk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxtEfOlaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2oGMP1w3mU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzTlzsyg9TM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH0psheNBvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVSVOEnofZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5D5OvNtkY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6fruWDp660
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVvr3BDKq-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uluzACocbX0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5qUm-zNyCU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRQ6gw0B5so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvyo-TJ5Kr4


(I figured I shouldn't embed 13 vids.)
Interesting. Austrians claim that, by accepting statistical and probability methodology, you "understate the profit-loss accounting of the entrepreneur, overstate the ability of the state to 'mimic the market' and proceed on the road to socialism."

The underlying philosophical premise is to reject our ability to know anything at all (unless you are an entrepreneur, I guess).

It's absurd and further indicates that Austrian economics are not value-free (which means relies on or is influenced by value judgments, by the way - the oft-repeated definition that "a theory must have an explicit value judgment within it" is dead wrong).

[Dean]

Caplan further points out that, since profit-loss accounting was not present before the 'Soviet' regime came about, such a "lack of economic calculation" problem was not present.

Further, he points out (in chauvinistic manner) that Russia's economic calculation relied on the price system of Western currencies. Unwittingly, he proves a point I've made about the devaluation of socialist labor in the context of a global capitalist paradigm.

[Skooma Addict]

Idk if there are any Austrians here. Maybe left-reasoning but I can't speak for him. So if you are really that curious go to the Mises forums and ask them.


The underlying philosophical premise is to reject our ability to know anything at all (unless you are an entrepreneur, I guess).

No. that is what you wish they were saying as it would then be easy to refute.

[Dean]

It's not even worth watching his debate partner, unfortunately. He does little to explain the various concepts (perhaps because they've already been explained) and ultimately agrees with Caplan, while offering some very weak, non sequitor arguments.

[Dean]

Idk if there are any Austrians here. Maybe left-reasoning but I can't speak for him. So if you are really that curious go to the Mises forums and ask them.
You've renounced the school?

Anyhow, both Havet and Left Reasoning support (or have vocalized support) for Austrian economics, and you have committed the bulk of your presence here defending the school, though I do remember you rejecting anarchism at some point.


No. that is what you wish they were saying as it would then be easy to refute.
How does it differ, then? I'm really tired of your contradictions which have no actual counter-point.

I was legitimately characterizing the argument I've seen mentioned a few different places now. If I'm wrong, tell me how; don't simply accuse me of "wishing" things were characterized as such.

[Revolution starts with U]

That is the problem Skooma. You willingly admit it is impossible to refute, but not based on any evidence. Just on its methodology alone. It is a methodology no different than a theist explanation for God; unfalsifiability.

[anticap]

I just started watching that debate again (doubt I'll finish it). In part 2 Caplan summarizes the psychological school's objection to the neoclassical school (and presumably all others). It basically boils down to 'It makes you more open to socialism.'

Talk about value-laden: 'If you reject the psychological school then a very bad thing will happen.'

[Skooma Addict]

You've renounced the school?

Anyhow, both Havet and Left Reasoning support (or have vocalized support) for Austrian economics, and you have committed the bulk of your presence here defending the school, though I do remember you rejecting anarchism at some point.I dropped the term "Austrian" a long while ago. I still agree with them on some things such as the regression theorem of money.


How does it differ, then? I'm really tired of your contradictions which have no actual counter-point.

I was legitimately characterizing the argument I've seen mentioned a few different places now. If I'm wrong, tell me how; don't simply accuse me of "wishing" things were characterized as such. Where is it claimed that nobody can know anything unless they are entrepreneurs? People who aren't entrepreneurs can know that the world is not flat for example.

[Dean]

Where is it claimed that nobody can know anything unless they are entrepreneurs? People who aren't entrepreneurs can know that the world is not flat for example.
Wait, did you even see the video?

Quit making statements about things you haven't even taken the time to investigate yourself.

What a fraud.

[Skooma Addict]

Wait, did you even see the video?

Quit making statements about things you haven't even taken the time to investigate yourself.

The problem is that I have seen the video...twice. You asked me if I have seen the video, then in the very next sentence accuse me of not watching the video. lol.

This statement...


The underlying philosophical premise is to reject our ability to know anything at all (unless you are an entrepreneur, I guess)....is obviously false.

[Thug Lessons]

Arguing against Austrian economic theory is like arguing against Stalinism, in that it's both incredibly easy and ultimately pointless because nobody bought that bullshit in the first place.

[Dean]

The problem is that I have seen the video...twice. You asked me if I have seen the video, then in the very next sentence accuse me of not watching the video. lol.

This statement...

...is obviously false.

Then, please, explain it to me.I know my statement was an oversimplification, but if you reject it, you should be able to give an accurate account of that point I am missing.

[Dean]

This statement...

...is obviously false.
Since you've refused to expand on the point and give a counter-claim as to the characterization of the argument, I'll define it from a few sources:

http://www.friesian.com/socrates.htm

One of the basic principles of all of them--a basic principle of the whole Austrian School of economics--is that individuals, or special organizations, cannot have all the knowledge that would be necessary to calculate the value, as a relationship of supply and demand, and so the proper prices, of things in the market. There is just too much to know for it to be rapidly acquired and continually updated, especially when demand depends on what people want, and this changes and generally cannot be known at all until people actually spend their money. Only the free market itself can serve to coordinate the dispersed knowledge of multitudes of producers and consumers into the determination of a market clearing price.

http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/radical-uncertainty/

Austrian economists often attack the mainstream for ignoring something they call “radical uncertainty,” “sheer ignorance,” or sometimes “Knightian uncertainty.” A common Austrian slogan is that “Neoclassical economists study only cases where people know that they don’t know; we study cases where people don’t know that they don’t know.”

So my vulgar representation is still true given a clause: we cannot know anything about the value of something; only via market activity does something acquire value.

In fact, this is not unlike a point made by Marx:

The bodily form of the commodity becomes its value form. But, mark well, that this quid pro quo exists in the case of any commodity B, only when some other commodity A enters into a value relation with it, and then only within the limits of this relation. Since no commodity can stand in the relation of equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into the expression of its own value, every commodity is compelled to choose some other commodity for its equivalent, and to accept the use value, that is to say, the bodily shape of that other commodity as the form of its own value.

However, the Austrian model is plagiarized and rearranged in order to provide a moral backing for the market price system, all the while maintaining its incredibly narrow, philosophical model.


The differences between the models are striking. The Marxist is a concrete analysis of specific functions of the world - as such, it is both responsive and vulnerable to the particularities of the economic world.

The Austrian model is one of philosophy and mysticism - it proscribes particular traits to the market model, assuming that there is some value to them, and yet never condescends to provide any concrete analysis which might confirm or deny them. In realigning its subject of analysis to the human psyche and supposedly only accepting 'certain facts' the Austrians still come to the most erroneous conclusions about human activity, conclusions which demand an extreme level of assertion of characteristics to the human being which they at once, again, refuse to provide any serious inquiry into.

[Skooma Addict]

Since you've refused to expand on the point and give a counter-claim as to the characterization of the argument, I'll define it from a few sources:

Your initial claim is supported by neither of the two sources you provided. People who aren't entrepreneurs can obviously still know things about the world. Nobody has claimed otherwise.


So my vulgar representation is still true given a clause: we cannot know anything about the value of something; only via market activity does something acquire value.

No it isn't. Your vulgar representation is just flat out wrong. But Austrians believe in the STV.


The Austrian model is one of philosophy and mysticism - it proscribes particular traits to the market model, assuming that there is some value to them, and yet never condescends to provide any concrete analysis which might confirm or deny them. In realigning its subject of analysis to the human psyche and supposedly only accepting 'certain facts' the Austrians still come to the most erroneous conclusions about human activity, conclusions which demand an extreme level of assertion of characteristics to the human being which they at once, again, refuse to provide any serious inquiry into.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't understand why you don't just go to the Mises forums and discuss this with them?

[Dean]

Your initial claim is supported by neither of the two sources you provided. People who aren't entrepreneurs can obviously still know things about the world. Nobody has claimed otherwise.
That's not the point of the claim.


No it isn't. Your vulgar representation is just flat out wrong. But Austrians believe in the STV.
No its not. The Subjective Theory of Value doesn't refute what I said.


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't understand why you don't just go to the Mises forums and discuss this with them?
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why don't you read some source material and actually back up your arguments?

[Skooma Addict]

Go to the Mises forums and ask them. I am not going to bother arguing against statements like this.


The underlying philosophical premise is to reject our ability to know anything at all (unless you are an entrepreneur, I guess).

Seriously though, if you are that interested in the issue, you would go to the Mises forums.

[Revolution starts with U]

When are you going to bother arguing against anything, rather than just piping in with "you dont understand" every once in a while?

[Skooma Addict]

When are you going to bother arguing against anything, rather than just piping in with "you dont understand" every once in a while?

Well anyone who makes such a statement as listed above doesn't understand, and I am not here to teach.

[Dean]

Go to the Mises forums and ask them. I am not going to bother arguing against statements like this.



Seriously though, if you are that interested in the issue, you would go to the Mises forums.
You're the one who engaged my criticism. Since you refuse to provide evidence for your position, you apparently concede the point.



When are you going to bother arguing against anything, rather than just piping in with "you dont understand" every once in a while?

Well anyone who makes such a statement as listed above doesn't understand, and I am not here to teach.
You didn't answer the question; you have proved, however, that you are not here to provide any explicit arguments or explanations. I've not only done that, but I've also gone fairly in depth into various positions and papers.

And you've done nothing but to contradict me. It's really quite pitiful.

[Skooma Addict]

You're the one who engaged my criticism. Since you refuse to provide evidence for your position, you apparently concede the point.

You wanted an Austrian perspective, and since I am not an Austrian, I recommended that you bring the topic up at the Mises forums. What point am I "conceding?" The only point I contested was a blatant mischaracterization by you which you admit was "vulgar" (aka completely unfounded).

So to be clear, are you going to stand by this claim?



The underlying philosophical premise is to reject our ability to know anything at all (unless you are an entrepreneur, I guess).

If so, provide evidence, given that you made the assertion.

[Dean]

You wanted an Austrian perspective, and since I am not an Austrian, I recommended that you bring the topic up at the Mises forums. What point am I "conceding?" The only point I contested was a blatant mischaracterization by you which you admit was "vulgar" (aka completely unfounded).

So to be clear, are you going to stand by this claim?
I've modified it to reflect the point, though you ignored my modified statement.


If so, provide evidence, given that you made the assertion.
The video and two quotes should suffice.

Why respond if you re4fuse to confront the theoretical and factual issues at stake here?

[Skooma Addict]

I've modified it to reflect the point, though you ignored my modified statement.


The video and two quotes should suffice.

Why respond if you re4fuse to confront the theoretical and factual issues at stake here?

Ok, so we agree that your initial statement was dead wrong. good.


we cannot know anything about the value of something; only via market activity does something acquire value.Something "acquires value" for each person on a subjective basis. If I live alone on an island, and I make a fishing rod, that rod, that item has acquired value in my eyes even though there is no market. People also value friends and family.

Then you make this criticism...


The Austrian model is one of philosophy and mysticism - it proscribes particular traits to the market model, assuming that there is some value to them, and yet never condescends to provide any concrete analysis which might confirm or deny them. In realigning its subject of analysis to the human psyche and supposedly only accepting 'certain facts' the Austrians still come to the most erroneous conclusions about human activity, conclusions which demand an extreme level of assertion of characteristics to the human being which they at once, again, refuse to provide any serious inquiry into. ...where you simply attempt to claim AE is mysticism by making vague statements which mostly don't even make sense.

[Dean]

Ok, so we agree that your initial statement was dead wrong. good.

Something "acquires value" for each person on a subjective basis. If I live alone on an island, and I make a fishing rod, that rod, that item has acquired value in my eyes even though there is no market. People also value friends and family.
However, that use-value tells us nothing about the relationship the commodity has to trade or economic activity.

What monetary expression will the commodity have if it serves no purpose to others (i.e., has no social value)? These are two different notions of value, and you introduce a third with the emotional ones.


Then you make this criticism...

...where you simply attempt to claim AE is mysticism by making vague statements which mostly don't even make sense.
That doesn't refute the criticism in any way, shape or form.

[anticap]

I wonder why Skooma Addict is here. He clearly doesn't know even the basics of the views of the majority here (shown by his continued ignorance when it comes to the concept of use-value versus exchange-value), and he clearly doesn't understand even his own purported position (shown by his continued inability to expound on it when asked). So is prepared to play the role of neither iconoclast nor proselytizer.

My conclusion: he is here to troll.

[Skooma Addict]

However, that use-value tells us nothing about the relationship the commodity has to trade or economic activity.

What monetary expression will the commodity have if it serves no purpose to others (i.e., has no social value)? These are two different notions of value, and you introduce a third with the emotional ones.
There is just "value," which is a specific disposition someone can attribute to an object. If by "exchange-value" you mean price, then duh, market prices can only be known with the presence of a market. There can still be "prices" which are set by a central authority of some sort, but those prices will not be as helpful for coordination production as market prices would be.


I wonder why Skooma Addict is here. He clearly doesn't know even the basics of the views of the majority here (shown by his continued ignorance when it comes to the concept of use-value versus exchange-value), and he clearly doesn't understand even his own purported position (shown by his continued inability to expound on it when asked). So is prepared to play the role of neither iconoclast nor proselytizer.

My conclusion: he is here to troll.

When I troll a forum, I stop by and make 50 posts tops. On this site I have over 1400 posts.

[anticap]

When I troll a forum, I stop by and make 50 posts tops. On this site I have over 1400 posts.

Prolific troll is prolific.

[Revolution starts with U]

There can still be "prices" which are set by a central authority of some sort, but those prices will not be as helpful for coordination production as market prices would be
Only when you're dealing with an un-quantifiable demand. Central planning on roads works fine (arguments on whether it could work better aside), because we know where we need roads for the most part; where there are buildings and houses. Central planning on televisions is absurd, without some kind of coercive law against owning >X amount of luxuries, of course.
Blanket statements (supposedly based on a priori truths) rarely accurately reflect economic reality.

[Dean]

There is just "value," which is a specific disposition someone can attribute to an object.
There are distinctly different models for valuation which bear their own analysis.


If by "exchange-value" you mean price, then duh, market prices can only be known with the presence of a market. There can still be "prices" which are set by a central authority of some sort, but those prices will not be as helpful for coordination production as market prices would be.
Price is a specific kind of exchange value which involves currency. They are both exchange values, and furthermore, the following is absurd outside of a comparative model which involves at least one other commodity.:

1 Lb Corn = 5 dollars

And is also absurd (as are any exchange values) until there is a social character to the commodities.

There is no equivalent, quantitative value judgment possible outside of a social exchange model, by simple nature of the fact that such a microcosm would exclude any competition or confrontation in terms of property.


When I troll a forum, I stop by and make 50 posts tops. On this site I have over 1400 posts.

What purpose are your repeated posts where you refuse to explain your own theories, or why yo oppose any given theory? The above is a classic example.

A third grader could have made your post. Surely you must have some concept of economic models besides the above, disinterested positions.

[Skooma Addict]

There are distinctly different models for valuation which bear their own analysis.Whatever it is you mean by this, idk. The fact is that "value" is just a disposition held by an individual. That is it.


Price is a specific kind of exchange value which involves currency. They are both exchange values, and furthermore, the following is absurd outside of a comparative model which involves at least one other commodity.:

1 Lb Corn = 5 dollars

And is also absurd (as are any exchange values) until there is a social character to the commodities.

There is no equivalent, quantitative value judgment possible outside of a social exchange model, by simple nature of the fact that such a microcosm would exclude any competition or confrontation in terms of property.If you want to call commodities price its "exchange value" go ahead, as long as you understand that "exchange value" is not some kind of property of the commodity.

I am not sure if you remember what the initial (well actually, modified) statement was which you made?


we cannot know anything about the value of something; only via market activity does something acquire value. As I said, "value" is simply a disposition attributed to an object. But if you meant "exchange value," then yes, the market "exchange value" can only be known in the presence of a market. However, there can still be "exchange values" in the absence of a market.


What purpose are your repeated posts where you refuse to explain your own theories, or why yo oppose any given theory? The above is a classic example.

A third grader could have made your post. Surely you must have some concept of economic models besides the above, disinterested positions. I have explained myself pretty well. Try to stick to actual arguments. I frankly don't care about your whining.

[Dean]

I have explained myself pretty well.
You never explain yourself because it might lead to criticism. When you defend theories or the like, and they are incontrovertibly criticized, you distance yourself from the same things you defended (notable in the case of fractional reserve banking).

As for the discussion: exchange value is a property that commodities have as a result of their relations on an exchange medium.



Aristotle may have been the first to point out this equivalent value model of commodities.

In fact, you're wrong about my use of the term value, as mentioned in one of the wuotes:

to calculate the value, as a relationship of supply and demand, and so the proper prices, of things in the market
It should have been clear that the value we are speaking of is exchange value, therefore. Your inability to grasp the point, and your frequent return to childish semantic arguments, are merely underpinnings of your generalized lack of understanding for the issues put forth.


I'll repeat my question: If my representation is the incorrect representation of the Austrian theory, what then is the correct one? This is the primary issue you felt driven to discuss.

You hilariously attacked the argument I ascribed to the Austrian School as if proving that point wrong somehow proved that the Austrian school couldn't possibly have believed that, or perhaps that "it was obvious" that the Austrians don't believe that.

In any case, it is not obvious why they don't think that, nor what their theory does in fact represent. It sounds like simple market mystification - that is an obfuscation of real market forces in the furtherance of a philosophical, rather than materialist representation of them.

So please, indulge me. What is it that they think on the issue of market valuation of commodities?

[Skooma Addict]

As for the discussion: exchange value is a property that commodities have as a result of their relations on an exchange medium.So its just what you can get in exchange for the commodity. Alright.


You never explain yourself because it might lead to criticism. When you defend theories or the like, and they are incontrovertibly criticized, you distance yourself from the same things you defended (notable in the case of fractional reserve banking).I support FRB. I don't distance myself from that fact.





You hilariously attacked the argument I ascribed to the Austrian School as if proving that point wrong somehow proved that the Austrian school couldn't possibly have believed that, or perhaps that "it was obvious" that the Austrians don't believe that.

In any case, it is not obvious why they don't think that, nor what their theory does in fact represent. It sounds like simple market mystification - that is an obfuscation of real market forces in the furtherance of a philosophical, rather than materialist representation of them.

So please, indulge me. What is it that they think on the issue of market valuation of commodities? They correctly believe that the markets "exchange value" can only be known in the presence of a market, but that "exchange values" can still exist in the absence of a market.

[Dean]

They correctly believe that the markets "exchange value" can only be known in the presence of a market, but that "exchange values" can still exist in the absence of a market.

And how does that relate to "radical ignorance"?