Crushing Rational Actor Theory

[Havet]

The work of Dan Ariely has crushed rational actor theory.

Specifically with the dictator/ultimatum game.

x8baBvOk0ng


As I mention in the video, what’s really interesting is that this locksmith was penalized for getting better at his profession. He was tipped better when he was an apprentice and it took him longer to pick a lock, even though he would oftentimes break the lock! Now that it takes him only a moment, his customers complain that he is overcharging and they don’t tip him. What this tells is that consumers don’t value goods and services solely by their utility, benefit from the service, but also a sense of fairness relating to how much effort was exerted.

Complete post can be found here (http://danariely.com/2010/12/15/locksmiths/)

Any of the resident ancaps/libertarians/cappies/miseans/etc wanna comment on this?

[Havet]

Don't be scared to voice your agreement/oppostion, comrades

[balaclava]

I don’t know what rational actor theory is but it seems to me that what your video man is stating is the obvious. Nobody likes getting ripped off and most people want to pay a fair price; if they think they’re being ripped off they won’t be happy if they think the tradesman has undersold himself they’ll tip big – that’s human nature.

[Revolution starts with U]

Rational actor theory is what most theories of capitalism are based on. If it is proven wrong, it destroys their entire foundation. ANd then they'll have to come up with new theories, like they did when we started using LTV against them.

[Havet]

I don’t know what rational actor theory is but it seems to me that what your video man is stating is the obvious. Nobody likes getting ripped off and most people want to pay a fair price; if they think they’re being ripped off they won’t be happy if they think the tradesman has undersold himself they’ll tip big – that’s human nature.


I think the most important point being made is that 'human nature', unrestricted by any form of democratic or social scrutiny, does not inherently lead to the most rational and efficient choices.

[ComradeMan]

I don’t know what rational actor theory is but it seems to me that what your video man is stating is the obvious. Nobody likes getting ripped off and most people want to pay a fair price; if they think they’re being ripped off they won’t be happy if they think the tradesman has undersold himself they’ll tip big – that’s human nature.



I think you've missed the point.

The point was about the fair price.

What is a fair price?

Also people's existential intersubjectivity plays a role in determining what a fair price is and isn't and therefore it's a difficult argument to tackle on objective terms.

[IcarusAngel]

I don’t know what rational actor theory is but it seems to me that what your video man is stating is the obvious. Nobody likes getting ripped off and most people want to pay a fair price; if they think they’re being ripped off they won’t be happy if they think the tradesman has undersold himself they’ll tip big – that’s human nature.


You're a mathematician and you've never come across this? It's used all the time as an example where mathematics analyzes human behavior.

[Dean]

The work of Dan Ariely has crushed rational actor theory.

Specifically with the dictator/ultimatum game.


Complete post can be found here (http://danariely.com/2010/12/15/locksmiths/)

Any of the resident ancaps/libertarians/cappies/miseans/etc wanna comment on this?

A couple points.

First, he is right and he hits on the very core of the Marxist Labor Theory of Value. If he thinks that value is a function of human effort, this is really just a different way of saying that value is created by purposeful human labor.

Anyone familiar with the LTV might say, "aha! but what about the deficit of value that arises when the socially necessary labor time is reduced?" That is - what happens when less labor is required to make something (hence driving prices down), and yet a laborer has already put forward much more effort than his product can be priced at? This new value relation is still a function of effort - namely, the new cost-basis for the product. The fact that the old-fashioned labor will not have the same value is merely a consequence of competitive, alienated market activity.


Secondly - how can you reconcile mutualism with the concept that people aren't generally rational creatures at a relatively equal rate across the board? Trade is a competitive practice - the expansion of your own return, which is the goal, is diametrically opposed to the same of those you trade with. Doesn't the above exemplify how people disregard their own value, and "cheat themselves" with their perception of value relations? How do you expect to maintain trade in an egalitarian state-of-things without widespread, irrational activity like this - activity which would certainly undermine the concept of commensurate-value-exchange?

[Skooma Addict]

This isn't really anything new, and the most cumbersome versions of Rational actor theory ended after the Reagan/Thatcher era. Behavioral econ has already covered issues like these in much more depth.

As for what an Ancap/libertarian/Misesian would say, none of this is incompatible with AE. Mises for example never made any arguments in opposition to anything said in the video (unless I missed something in the video).

[Havet]

[/I]Doesn't the above exemplify how people disregard their own value, and "cheat themselves" with their perception of value relations? How do you expect to maintain trade in an egalitarian state-of-things without widespread, irrational activity like this - activity which would certainly undermine the concept of commensurate-value-exchange?

I think that what i've said above (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1959800&postcount=5) covers this already.

The difference from that 'egalitarian-state-of-things' and what happens now on a large basis would be the inclusion of several forms of democratic and social scrutiny. Businesses these days still lack reception to feedback. The traditional method of 'voting with your money' is not enough, especially at the multinational corporation level.

Trade is always occurring. Even in a communist society there would be trade. The currency however would be votes instead of paper and metals. To claim that in a communist society there would not be any exchange involving goods and services is impossible unless you can prove how technocratic anti-scarcity elements could implement a gift economy. Possible? Yes. But we just don't know (yet) how likely or when.

[Havet]

As for what an Ancap/libertarian/Misesian would say, none of this is incompatible with AE. Mises for example never made any arguments in opposition to anything said in the video (unless I missed something in the video).

This text mentions austrian economists believing in human rational behaviour


First, general rational theories are usually based on a single model and principle of rational behavior. In Weber’s terms, this is the model or conception of instrumentally-rational social action and of formal or economic rationality. In other words, the homo economicus principle is assumed to operate (e.g. by Austrian economists like Mises) not only in the economy, i.e. the production and consumption of material goods, but in all society conceived as an overarching market-place.

Link to text (http://www.sociology.org/content/vol7.2/02_zafirovski.html)

[Skooma Addict]

I will have to read the text. The paragraph you cited does not explain where the Austrian model of rationality is refuted (If that in fact was the purpose). The Austrian model of rationality is perfectly consistent with the locksmith example in the video.

But without reading the text I can't really make a fair judgment.

[IcarusAngel]

What Miseans believe is that people do things because they expect that result. It's one of the axioms havet posted before. They made have bad data, their assumptions may be wrong, and they may even use the wrong tools, but all actions, even actions by crazy people, are rational.

Furthermore, they ignore group dynamics. The government has never done anything. Even market itself, beautiful as it is, has never done anything. It has never made a decision. Only people make decisions.

The first point is refuted by modern cognitive science.

I don't really know understand the second point at all. It sounds weird, and would justify any action.

[Skooma Addict]

Furthermore, they ignore group dynamics. The government has never done anything. Even market itself, beautiful as it is, has never done anything. It has never made a decision. Only people make decisions.

This is a very easy point to comprehend.

[Dean]

As for what an Ancap/libertarian/Misesian would say, none of this is incompatible with AE. Mises for example never made any arguments in opposition to anything said in the video (unless I missed something in the video).

I didn't realize that you followed mises throughout his whole life and read everything he ever wrote. Its interesting how much supreme, holistic knowledge you claim to have.

[Skooma Addict]

Well if you want to provide me with a quote proving me wrong I will take back what I said.

[Dean]

Well if you want to provide me with a quote proving me wrong I will take back what I said.

No, no, its not necessary. You are familiar with everything he wrote and said; I don't doubt it at all.

[Skooma Addict]

Alright, so I take it you agree with me then. Good.

[Dean]

Alright, so I take it you agree with me then. Good.
Well, I'm going on your word in which you remarked that an author "never" made an argument of such character. I'm not sure what value quoting him to you would serve, since you'd already be familiar with any quote I could find.

[Dean]

Your whole statement was ridiculous. I only took the most obvious part primarily because you refused to offer any substative response which might show where Austrians stand on the issue.

Even a link like this would have worked (where other Austrians have done another sloppy, obtuse comparison which at least offers substance): http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11190.aspx

One person notices the obtuseness:


Because....?
So again, what are the differences? You've so far implied it is the same thing, as far as I can tell, except it uses "mathematics as its medium of expression".
I mean it doesn't seem like any kind of advancement, yet Gary Becker got a Noble Prize for it in 1992. Where the hell was Mises' one? : \


Further down, an Austrian is quoted reasserting the fundamentally mystical concept of Austrian economics as a whole: "total revenue, value" must be "discovered" presumably by acting in the market:


The value scales of Rational Choice Theory and their subsequent manipulation in Neo Classical models heavily imply they are a given, whereas in the Austrian view they are discovered, rediscovered, destroyed and remade, etc., every time a decision has to be made. It's kind of like what Rational Choice Theory does is take a pedagocically useful construct that shows mechanically what's happening and substitutes that for the reality. Similar to differing definitions of demand elasticity. To Austrians the real issue is the effect on total revenue which can't be known, only discovered, while as described in Neo Classical books it's the give in the demand schedule, or how many more or less units will be sold for a given price drop or increase respectively. Both are 'right', but the Neo Classical definition is also irrelevant because it takes demand schedules as given instead of something to be disovered on the market. In reality there is no demand schedule in a book somewhere, so 'how much give' there is in that schedule isn't something that's known. Just like actual value scales aren't known or given, they are discovered at the moment of choice, and the attempt to systematize the concept removes a crucial real element: uncertainty, which is not the same as random by the way. In the end the attempted mathematization of the subject has taken a dynamic real process that occurs and the graphs and tools used to represent it, and morphed it into those very graphs and tools. Kind of like someone expecting to see a big star or dot and a city name written on the ground at a town center when they travel because they saw them on the map they used to plan their trip.

[Skooma Addict]

Did you post this in the correct thread?

[Dean]

Did you post this in the correct thread?
Absolutely.

[Skooma Addict]

Well what statement of mine was ridiculous and why? I also understand that you think AE is "mystical" (i.e. not in line with socialist thought).

[Revolution starts with U]

Mystical, as in based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Like, idk... RATIONAL ACTOR THEORY :laugh:

[Dean]

Well what statement of mine was ridiculous and why?

Here:


This isn't really anything new, and the most cumbersome versions of Rational actor theory ended after the Reagan/Thatcher era. Behavioral econ has already covered issues like these in much more depth.

Theories "ended"? This is akin to your ridiculous claim that "we've gotten further than Marxism / Austrianism" as refutations in various respective threads. Meaningless quips about the tendency of academia (apparently).


As for what an Ancap/libertarian/Misesian would say, none of this is incompatible with AE.
OK, you could expand on this but you don't, so its another empty argument. Its not too surprising that those who have discussions with Austrian-styled 'economists' never leave the discussion with any notion of what Austrians believe.


Mises for example never made any arguments in opposition to anything said in the video (unless I missed something in the video).
Oh, right, now we are to crown you the authority on Mises - despite your complete lack of ever quoting or discussing any of his theories unless others bring them to the table in an argument.


I also understand that you think AE is "mystical"
That's right, and here's why:


Mysticism (from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries))[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism#cite_note-0) is the pursuit of communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion) with, identity with, or conscious awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness) of an ultimate reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality), divinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity), spiritual truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality), or God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiences) or awareness.
Austrians, like many pro-free marketeers (but not all!) reject aggregation and study of economic data as a means to understand market relations due to idealistic notions of the market. More bluntly, they seek to justify the free market phenomenon as a function of free human interests. To this end, any empirical critique of market activity is roundly rejected since Miseans claim that "only by entering into market relations can we discover our true and just value relations." And that's where the mystical part comes in - you don't learn about the market by studying data (despite the wealth of data available). You learn about yourself in the market. This is well supported, as in the quote I posted earlier.

Austrian "economics" (barring some of the specific theories) sets out on philosophical, idealistic principles, and its output is merely the same. These principles are explicitly political and provide little foundation for scientific inquiry - often enough, it is the opposite. Interestingly, Leeson and Boettke do not even think that Mises is consistent in his methodology (unsurprising):

See, for instance, Rothbard (1957, 1972). Rothbard (1957), however, defends apriorism on slightly different
grounds than Mises. He maintains that while the starting point of economic theory—the proposition that
all humans behave purposively—may be known via introspection (per Mises), it can also be defended as
aprioristic if it is learned by appealing to ‘‘broad empirical’’ observation. In this way, Rothbard introduces
what he calls an ‘‘Aristotelian’’ derivation of the action axiom’s aprioristic status. Also on this issue, see
Smith (1996) who defends the view of an ontological a priori—a ‘‘deep-lying a priori dimension on the side
of the things themselves.’’ Kirzner (2001) recounts a story in which Mises allegedly told him that the action
axiom was derived from ‘‘experience’’ as well. In his first book and doctoral dissertation (1960) written
under the direction of Mises, however, Kirzner maintains the traditional Misesian argument that we know
humans act by way of introspection.
http://www.peterleeson.com/Was_Mises_Right.pdf


(i.e. not in line with socialist thought).
I've never claimed that mysticism exists in a dichotomy opposing socialism. There's nothing inherently wrong with mysticism, but when it stands as a direct contradiction of empiricism, it starts to be an issue. Its certainly a valid criticism when the general methodology of a school is mysticism. In AE, the methodology of inquiry when it comes to market activity is consistently mystical: their conclusion is always that we ought to follow a free market not due to any empirical study which supports it (though some have been developed by them) but because only the free market will prove human value relations.

Its absurd because all of the psychology surrounding the issue of fascist character types and freedom in particular are ignored; one wonders how the so called "psychological" school had such a disdain for study of psychological data, given that no human mind can be roundly summed up in their "apriorism."

[Skooma Addict]

Theories "ended"? This is akin to your ridiculous claim that "we've gotten further than Marxism / Austrianism" as refutations in various respective threads. Meaningless quips about the tendency of academia (apparently).
As in lost their popularity. Obviously some people still believe in strict versions of rational actor theory, just as some people still believe the world is flat. The fact that modern economics has moved past Marxism is not supposed to be a refutation of anything.


OK, you could expand on this but you don't, so its another empty argument. Its not too surprising that those who have discussions with Austrian-styled 'economists' never leave the discussion with any notion of what Austrians believe.
Well I am assuming everyone knows that none of this is incompatible with libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism, as these are normative social theories. As for AE, you are right, I propably went too far asuming readers here had a basic grasp of AE.

Austrians believe in radical subjectivism and methodological individualism. They do not find any problems or contradictions with people offering more money to the apprentice.



Oh, right, now we are to crown you the authority on Mises - despite your complete lack of ever quoting or discussing any of his theories unless others bring them to the table in an argument.

I don't see the problem here. If you think my claim regarding Mises was wrong, provide me with a quote demonstrating so.



Mysticism (from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries))[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism#cite_note-0) is the pursuit of communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion) with, identity with, or conscious awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness) of an ultimate reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality), divinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity), spiritual truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality), or God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiences) or awareness

In no way whatsoever does AE fit any of this criteria. Besides, this is not how you actually use the term. My definition of mysitcal (not in line with socialist thought) better fits how you use the term.



Austrians, like many pro-free marketeers (but not all!) reject aggregation and study of economic data as a means to understand market relations due to idealistic notions of the market. More bluntly, they seek to justify the free market phenomenon as a function of free human interests. To this end, any empirical critique of market activity is roundly rejected since Miseans claim that "only by entering into market relations can we discover our true and just value relations." And that's where the mystical part comes in - you don't learn about the market by studying data (despite the wealth of data available). You learn about yourself in the market. This is well supported, as in the quote I posted earlier.

I am sorry but this makes absolutely no sense at all. Your very first sentence is dead wrong. The reason why some Austrians reject aggregation of economic data (only in particular cases) is due to the complexity of individuals and their actions. Also the majority of "free marketers" support aggregation of economic data.

For the most part, they seek to justify the market on consequentialist grounds. Although that is separate from their economic work.

Although my favorite part...



To this end, any empirical critique of market activity is roundly rejected since Miseans claim that "only by entering into market relations can we discover our true and just value relations."
First Mises != AE. Second, the quote of Mises which you provide is him arguing for the necessity of markets for economic coordination. It has nothing to do with "rejecting emperical critiques of market activity."

Not that any of this would make AE fit the definition of mysticism which you provide above.

Your last two sentences (the ones in bold) are you just flat out making things up. Also, as far as I am aware, every Austrian econonist ever thought you could learn about the market by studying data. People involved with the stock market do this all the time.


Austrian "economics" (barring some of the specific theories) sets out on philosophical, idealistic principles, and its output is merely the same. These principles are explicitly political and provide little foundation for scientific inquiry - often enough, it is the opposite. Interestingly, Leeson and Boettke do not even think that Mises is consistent in his methodology (unsurprising):
Well why don't you tell me what principals of AE are idealistic and political?

Proposition 1: Only individuals choose.
Proposition 2: The study of the market order is fundamentally about exchange behavior and the institutions within which exchanges take place.
Proposition 3: The “facts” of the social sciences are what people believe and think.
Proposition 4: Utility and costs are subjective.
Proposition 5: The price system economizes on the information that people need to process in making their decisions.
Proposition 6: Private property in the means of production is a necessary condition for rational economic calculation.
Proposition 7: The competitive market is a process of entrepreneurial discovery.
Proposition 8: Money is nonneutral.
Proposition 9: The capital structure consists of heterogeneous goods that have multispecific uses that must be aligned.
Proposition 10: Social institutions often are the result of human action, but not of human design.
Also, please remeber, just because you disagree with one of these principles does not mean the principle is idealistic.




I've never claimed that mysticism exists in a dichotomy opposing socialism. There's nothing inherently wrong with mysticism, but when it stands as a direct contradiction of empiricism, it starts to be an issue. Its certainly a valid criticism when the general methodology of a school is mysticism. In AE, the methodology of inquiry when it comes to market activity is consistently mystical: their conclusion is always that we ought to follow a free market not due to any empirical study which supports it (though some have been developed by them) but because only the free market will prove human value relations.

Its absurd because all of the psychology surrounding the issue of fascist character types and freedom in particular are ignored; one wonders how the so called "psychological" school had such a disdain for study of psychological data, given that no human mind can be roundly summed up in their "apriorism."
AE is value free, so it does not say what we should do. Also, can you please stop blantantly making things up? "we ouoght to follow a free market because it will prove human value relations?" What does that even mean? Different Austrian economists favored the free market on different grounds (Rothbard v Mises) and not all Austrian economists favored a free market (Wieser)

[Dean]

First Mises != AE. Second, the quote of Mises which you provide is him arguing for the necessity of markets for economic coordination. It has nothing to do with "rejecting emperical critiques of market activity."

Firstly, I haven't quoted Mises in this thread. Perhaps this speaks to your general inability to critically assess things you respond to.

I could do a piece-by-piece refuation of your post but its pointless. You still hold to this fundamentalist dogma about "AE being value free" despite ample evidence to the contrary, which you have never confronted in the past. Suffice it to say that the Marxist acceptance of human activity as basically subjective (including the Austrian school economists) is far more "radically subjective" than the idealistic nonsense congealed in Austiran Praxeology and its counterparts.

I'd like you to get back to the topic at hand. You claimed that Austrian Economists do not believe in rational choice theory. That's fine and well. But you haven't explained why (or more appropriately, you haven't explained why similar things like Praxeology can't be considered 'rational choice'). If you want to argue the point, you should be explaining where Austrians stand on the issues. Simply saying that they "don't agree with x" is little more than a contradiction. It's all we can usually expect from you.

I fully expect you to say "if you want to know, ask an Austrian." Well, this betrays your own ignorance (as such defeatism has in the past). If you aren't interested in discussing the issue, don't feign it. We've seen enough Austrian-styled idealists talk about rational-actor theories (or express their content) to know that the OP does, in fact, repudiate some of their claims - as well as approximately backing up the Marxist LTV. But to that end, I would say the OP actually supports a "rational actor theory" - albeit one which proves that humans rationally value labor where it is a clear function of the transaction, rather than economic leverage which is endemic to centralized systems of economic control such as capitalism.

[Skooma Addict]

Firstly, I haven't quoted Mises in this thread. Perhaps this speaks to your general inability to critically assess things you respond to.
Well you make it look like you quote Mises right here...


To this end, any empirical critique of market activity is roundly rejected since Miseans claim that "only by entering into market relations can we discover our true and just value relations." so...


I could do a piece-by-piece refuation of your post but its pointless. You still hold to this fundamentalist dogma about "AE being value free" despite ample evidence to the contrary, which you have never confronted in the past. Suffice it to say that the Marxist acceptance of human activity as basically subjective (including the Austrian school economists) is far more "radically subjective" than the idealistic nonsense congealed in Austiran Praxeology and its counterparts.Every single sentence in this paragraph is an assertion. I am sorry, but I will not take your word for it that you could do a piece by piece refutation of what I said. I believe AE is value free, and again, your assertion to the contrary is literally meaningless to me. Although I do find it funny that consider this belief a "fundamentalist dogma." You overuse words like "mystical," "idealist," "dogma," and "childish" to the point where they don't mean anything when you say them. Your last sentence is another assertion.


I'd like you to get back to the topic at hand. You claimed that Austrian Economists do not believe in rational choice theory. That's fine and well. But you haven't explained why (or more appropriately, you haven't explained why similar things like Praxeology can't be considered 'rational choice'). If you want to argue the point, you should be explaining where Austrians stand on the issues. Simply saying that they "don't agree with x" is little more than a contradiction. It's all we can usually expect from you.
For starters, saying "don't agree with x" is not a contradiction. You must not know what the word contradiction means. Austrians don't believe in a rational actor theory which would be refuted by the locksmith example because Austrians use completely different criteria to define rationality. For an Austrian, any intentional action is rational. Also, you can call praxeology rational actor theory if you want, i don't care, as long as you realize it is not refuted by anything presented in the video.


I fully expect you to say "if you want to know, ask an Austrian." Well, this betrays your own ignorance (as such defeatism has in the past). If you aren't interested in discussing the issue, don't feign it. We've seen enough Austrian-styled idealists talk about rational-actor theories (or express their content) to know that the OP does, in fact, repudiate some of their claims - as well as approximately backing up the Marxist LTV. But to that end, I would say the OP actually supports a "rational actor theory" - albeit one which proves that humans rationally value labor where it is a clear function of the transaction, rather than economic leverage which is endemic to centralized systems of economic control such as capitalism. Telling you to ask an Austrian would be pointless. You already have it ingrained in your head that AE is mystical pseudoscience which would have been long gone by now were it not for the bourgeois economists. You did after all completely straw man it in your previous post. If the OP repudiates some of the Austrians claims, tell me which ones, and then refute them. Try not to straw man this time.

[Dean]

It's clear that I quoted a "misean" (or more accurately, paraphrased what Miseans say. Not Mises.


Austrians don't believe in a rational actor theory which would be refuted by the locksmith example because Austrians use completely different criteria to define rationality. For an Austrian, any intentional action is rational.
Thanks for finally getting to the point. Mises believes that human action is basically purposeful (specifically, in acquiring 'satisfaction'). So this is a rational-action theory (which becomes -choice if you accept that human choice is congealed in actions).


Also, you can call praxeology rational actor theory if you want, i don't care,
Then why did you say otherwise? How confused you are.


as long as you realize it is not refuted by anything presented in the video.
Perhaps not (since Praxeology itself is a rather niche, inconsequential set of "axioms" hardly useful in economics) - but most of the conclusions that self-styled Austrians reach, specifically when it comes to "rational-choice" market activity in a 'free market' are severely damaged by the OP. I think its clear that that was the thesis of the OP, and you don't seem to take issue with that.

[Skooma Addict]

Then why did you say otherwise? How confused you are.

No. I am saying I don't care if you call praxeology rational actor theory. You do not have a basic knowledge of AE, as evidenced by your previous posts, so idc what say about AE.


Perhaps not (since Praxeology itself is a rather niche, inconsequential set of "axioms" hardly useful in economics) - but most of the conclusions that self-styled Austrians reach, specifically when it comes to "rational-choice" market activity in a 'free market' are severely damaged by the OP. I think its clear that that was the thesis of the OP, and you don't seem to take issue with that.

Believe it or not you actually have to explain yourself. What Austrian belief is severely damaged by the OP?

[Dean]

No. I am saying I don't care if you call praxeology rational actor theory. You do not have a basic knowledge of AE, as evidenced by your previous posts, so idc what say about AE.
As opposed to your knowledge? All you do is say what Praxeology is not (in your view). When you provide any substance, its a copy-pasted list which doesn't seem to relate to the topic at hand at all.


Believe it or not you actually have to explain yourself. What Austrian belief is severely damaged by the OP?
All of them.

[Skooma Addict]

All of them.


Well given that some Austrian beliefs such as the non neutrality of money are completely unrelated to any of this, the most reasonable conclusion one could draw is that you are just making things up. Give specific examples.

[Dean]

Well given that some Austrian beliefs such as the non neutrality of money are completely unrelated to any of this, the most reasonable conclusion one could draw is that you are just making things up. Give specific examples.
I was mocking your penchant for sweeping generalizations. In any case, you rephrased my original statement - I said self-styled Austrians which you took to refer to the limited, specific cache of Austrian theories you think we are allowed to criticize (for an example of this, see your rejection of Mises' value-laden statements as justified targets for consideration of the value-freedom of Austrian theory).

[Skooma Addict]

I was mocking your penchant for sweeping generalizations. In any case, you rephrased my original statement - I said self-styled Austrians which you took to refer to the limited, specific cache of Austrian theories you think we are allowed to criticize (for an example of this, see your rejection of Mises' value-laden statements as justified targets for consideration of the value-freedom of Austrian theory).

Okay, so you are just going to refuse to give any actual answer then? Everyone makes value laden statements. That doesn't mean anything. The fact that Mises had normative beliefs regarding how people ought to act doesn't mean those beliefs are part of his economic theory. He himself stated this on numerous occasions.

But you are trying to change the subject. You said....


most of the conclusions that self-styled Austrians reach, specifically when it comes to "rational-choice" market activity in a 'free market' are severely damaged by the OP.So why don't you give some examples then?

Also, let me know when you are going to actually respond to post 26.

[Dean]

Okay, so you are just going to refuse to give any actual answer then? Everyone makes value laden statements. That doesn't mean anything. The fact that Mises had normative beliefs regarding how people ought to act doesn't mean those beliefs are part of his economic theory. He himself stated this on numerous occasions.
Convenient, but irrelevant. No human action (including the development of theories) lacks value judgements.


But you are trying to change the subject. You said....

So why don't you give some examples then?

Austrians both oppose the LTV and support the notion of expanded knowledge and accountancy leading to more rational (and therefore better) economic consequences. The OP explains how the understanding of human effort, which is basically a labor calculus, is directly related to the human concept of value.


Also, let me know when you are going to actually respond to post 26.
I've already responded to any relevant points - if you want to pursue any of the tangents I tried to avoid in my response to that post, please let me know.