Small problem in bourgeois economics...

[ComradeRed]

Okey dokey, first some definitions:

Definitions
R = P*Q = revenue
P = Price
Q = Quantity of goods sold
MR = dR/dQ = marginal revenue
MC = marginal cost

The problem

Bourgeois economics says that profit is maximized when MC = MR. Well, MR is treated as a constant with respect to Q (i.e. dMR/dQ = 0 so MR=5 is acceptable whereas MR = 3Q is not).

Now, if we simply go from:

1. MR = dR/dQ

to

2. Integral MR dQ = Integral dR = R

we find that since the spectrum of Q is discrete we switch to the Riemann sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann+sum):

3. SUM^{Q}_{i=0} MR deltaQ_{i} = R

or equivalently:

4. MR*(Q(Q+1)/2) = R

since MR is constant, we can pull it out in front of the sum and use gauss' rule[1].

Multiply both sides through and we get:

5. MR = 2R/(Q(Q+1))

And then recall from bourgeois economics the rule:

6. MR = dR/dQ = P + QdP/dQ

and set it equal to equation 5 to get:

7. 2R/(Q(Q+1)) = P + QdP/dQ
8. 2R/(Q(Q+1)) - P = QdP/dQ

Now bourgeois economists will tell you that dP/dQ = 0 [1] (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fio.uwinnipeg.ca%2F~jtownsen%2F410 3%2Fprofits.pdf&ei=_Ff_RcD0Don0iAGT3Ny4DA&usg=__bAcRZwo3tak5SS72Hdc3DmBdtYI=&sig2=mCPjCnCmkL6JuCEfR0MjNg) this is of course in a competitive economy (in monopoly situations, dP/dQ < 0).

Thus we can simply set equation 8 to zero (Q * 0 = 0) and then add P to both sides.

9. 2R/(Q(Q+1)) = P = R/Q

Divide both sides by R/Q:

10. 2/(Q+1) = 1

which holds if and only if Q=1 which means for any output greater than one commodity the entire kit and kaboodle falls to pieces. (if you plug Q=1 into equation 10 you get 2/2 = 1 everything else would not equal 1).

Worse, when it&#39;s not perfect competition and we&#39;ve got a monopoly, then we end up with:

11. 2/(Q+1) < 1

and Q is an integer value&#33; That means that the biggest value of Q is -2.

----------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] The spectrum of the quantity of goods produced is discrete mathematically. It&#39;s treated such as far as derivatives are concerned, so I argue that we can treat that way as far as integrals are concerned too.

[ComradeRed]

Actually if you then calculate out the revenue from equation 2 with the quantity from equation 10, you get:

A) integral MR dQ = Integral 2R/(Q(Q+1)) dQ

and recall R/Q = P

B) integral 2R/(Q(Q+1)) dQ = integral 2P/(Q+1) dQ = 2P*ln(Q+1)

making it a definite integral from 0 to 1 we get:

C) 2P*(ln(2)-ln(1)) = 1.38629436*P.

P is an independent variable interestingly enough and can be set to anything. But you&#39;re still dealing with Q=1 which is patently absurd in and of itself.

[edit]: Worse we have a contradiction on our hands&#33; :o

By definition, R = P*Q, but by equation (B) (which is an over-estimation) R = 2*P*ln(Q+1) but this would mean that Q = 2*ln(Q+1); we know that Q=0,1. The only way that we can recover consistency is by having the total amount produced be 0.

[ZX3]

Obviously capitalism "works." If it doesn&#39;t, socialists have a serious problem as they depend upon it to blaze the trail to socialism; to move from that old agarian, semi-feudal state, to an industrial pwerhouse.

The next effort should be made to prove that socilaism "works."

[pusher robot]

Well, MR is treated as a constant with respect to Q (i.e. dMR/dQ = 0 so MR=5 is acceptable whereas MR = 3Q is not).

What is your basis for that axiom?

[Tungsten]

Where does praxeology come in? Or are you still pooh-poohing it as irrelevent? Will you punks never learn?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 20, 2007 03:56 am--> (ZX3 &#064; March 20, 2007 03:56 am)Obviously capitalism "works." If it doesn&#39;t, socialists have a serious problem as they depend upon it to blaze the trail to socialism; to move from that old agarian, semi-feudal state, to an industrial pwerhouse.

The next effort should be made to prove that socilaism "works."[/b]
Not my point; my point is that bourgeois economists don&#39;t understand how capitalism works.

The Neoclassical price theory breaks down whenever Q>0 and becomes inconsistent.


Originally posted by Pusher [email protected]
Well, MR is treated as a constant with respect to Q (i.e. dMR/dQ = 0 so MR=5 is acceptable whereas MR = 3Q is not).

What is your basis for that axiom? MR is usually treated as a constant in the competitive short run (see Microeconomic Theory and Applications by Browning and Browning, Third Ed. pp.231-235).

Well, what&#39;s interesting is that recall the product rule:

d(f(x)g(x))/dx = g(x)*df(x)/dx + f(x)dg(x)/dx

Right? Now when it&#39;s used in a competitive economy in the short run, we get

d(PQ)/dQ = P(dQ/dQ) + Q(dP/dQ) = P + Q(dP/dQ)

Then because this is competitive, dP/dQ = 0, thus MR = P = constant w.r.t. Q (I refer you to The Journal of Political Economy February 1957, vol. LXV, "Perfect Competition, Historically contemplated" that&#39;s where it first comes up).


Tungsten
Where does praxeology come in? Or are you still pooh-poohing it as irrelevent? Will you punks never learn? :lol: You&#39;re so cute, you think you can derive the a postereori from the a priori.

[Tungsten]

:lol: You think that actually answers my question. Explain what you mean by that, assuming you know what you&#39;re talking about.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:52 am
:lol: You think that actually answers my question. Explain what you mean by that, assuming you know what you&#39;re talking about.
From Doubt the Action Axiom? Try to Disprove it (http://www.mises.org/story/2097):

Action as A Priori Synthetic

If one were to merely observe the behavior of humans in the external world, one would not be able to induce the existence of purposive action from it; all one would observe would be certain outward movements of human bodies. Sensory observation of others alone does not allow one to conclude that action exists.

Nor is formal logic sufficient to arrive at a proof that action exists. While it is necessary to reason logically about action to derive praxeological insights from it, there is no set of starting premises from which action can be strictly deduced. Rather, any logical analysis of action already presupposes its existence.

External observation is not necessary to conclude the existence of action, and logical analysis is not sufficient. Nonetheless, any thinking human knows that action exists and that he acts. How can this be? It is so because the fact that humans act is an a priori synthetic proposition. While it cannot be proved from more fundamental starting premises, it can be validated beyond possibility of refutation. Every attempt to refute a fundamental a priori synthetic proposition implicitly confirms its validity. This is so because every attempted refutation is itself a demonstration of the fact being denied. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains this in his treatise, Economic Science and the Austrian Method:

[T]he 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.
This also implies that the action axiom is a statement about a fact of reality. Even though an individual might try to deny the axiom, his real behavior attests to its existence. Action is the deliberate employment of means for attaining ends. In this case, the actor&#39;s end is the denial of the action axiom. His attempted means is the statement, "Humans do not act." While his endeavor is bound to fail, he still acts so long as he thinks that the means he employs will arrive at the end he seeks. --emphasis added

From A.J. Ayer&#39;s Language, Truth and Logic (Chapter 1):

One way of attacking a metaphysician who claimed to have knowledge of a reality which transcended the phenomenal world would be to enquire from what premises his propositions were deduced. Must he not begin, as other men do, with the evidence of his senses? And if so, what valid process of reasoning can possibly lead him to the conception of a transcendent reality? Surely from empirical premises nothing whatsoever concerning the properties, or even the existence, of anything super-empirical can legitimately be inferred. But this objection would be met by a denial on the part of the metaphysician that his assertions were ultimately based on the evidence of his senses. He would say that he was endowed with a faculty of intellectual intuition which enabled him to know facts that could not be known through sense-experience. And even if it could be shown that he was relying on empirical premises, and that his venture into a non-empirical world was therefore logically unjustified, it would not follow that the assertions which he made concerning this non-empirical world could not be true. For the fact that a conclusion does not follow from its putative premise is not sufficient to show that it is false. Consequently one cannot overthrow a system of transcendent metaphysics merely by criticising the way in which it comes into *Being*. What is required is rather a criticism of the nature of the actual statements which comprise it. And this is the line of argument which we shall, in fact, pursue. For we shall maintain that no statement which refers to a “reality” transcending the limits of all possible sense-experience can possibly have any literal significance; from which it must follow that the labours of those who have striven to describe such a reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense. --emphasis added

Perhaps you would argue that Austrian economics or praxeology is not metaphysical, but considering they reject the use of empiricism and instead use "self-evident propositions" (http://www.mises.org/story/1999) that would kind of make them metaphysicians (it cannot be denied that rationalism believes knowledge "transcends" reality -- otherwise they&#39;d be empiricists; but now as a rationalist you necessarily are trapped in the realm of metaphysics).

Supposing this were true, you&#39;ve got a serious problem posed by A. J. Ayer.

What&#39;s even funnier is that the Austrians, being rationalists, reject math as a valid tool :lol: Talk about antinomies.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 20, 2007 09:28 pm
I think it&#39;s funny how ComradeRed, totally exposes a flaw in capitalist economics with theory, and the capitalists have absolutely nothing to say; your my hero, :wub: .
Most of them were probably lost at the mention of calculus.

Not that I fully grasp the whole thing, having never studied economics in my life, but considering that the main argument posed by capitalists against the feasibility of Communism is economically based, you would think they could at least understand the field of economics.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+March 20, 2007 09:49 pm--> (RedStar1916 @ March 20, 2007 09:49 pm)
Cryotank [email protected] 20, 2007 09:28 pm
I think it&#39;s funny how ComradeRed, totally exposes a flaw in capitalist economics with theory, and the capitalists have absolutely nothing to say; your my hero, :wub: .
Most of them were probably lost at the mention of calculus.

Not that I fully grasp the whole thing, having never studied economics in my life, but considering that the main argument posed by capitalists against the feasibility of Communism is economically based, you would think they could at least understand the field of economics. [/b]
The flaw is that he is using an axiom (MR=0) applied to a theoretical, non-existent "ideal" - the "perfectly competitive market" - and using it draw conclusions about actual markets where clearly MR is not zero. There&#39;s no principle of capitalist economics that says that MR is always actually zero, only that there is constant pressure in that direction.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 20, 2007 04:28 pm
I think it&#39;s funny how ComradeRed, totally exposes a flaw in capitalist economics with theory, and the capitalists have absolutely nothing to say; your my hero, :wub: .
As Mr. Red said, the purpose was not to expose a flaw in capitalist economic theory (which fter all, as I pointed out, if true would be a problem for the socialist, and probably to a greater degree).

But as the other Mr Red said, I got lost on the calculus.

I should probably adopt the socialist argument about proof; there is no need to prove capitalism, its not relevent to anything, the proof is in the pudding ect ect ect

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by pusher robot+March 20, 2007 01:57 pm--> (pusher robot &#064; March 20, 2007 01:57 pm)
Originally posted by RedStar1916+March 20, 2007 09:49 pm--> (RedStar1916 &#064; March 20, 2007 09:49 pm)
Cryotank [email protected] 20, 2007 09:28 pm
I think it&#39;s funny how ComradeRed, totally exposes a flaw in capitalist economics with theory, and the capitalists have absolutely nothing to say; your my hero, :wub: .
Most of them were probably lost at the mention of calculus.

Not that I fully grasp the whole thing, having never studied economics in my life, but considering that the main argument posed by capitalists against the feasibility of Communism is economically based, you would think they could at least understand the field of economics. [/b]
The flaw is that he is using an axiom (MR=0) applied to a theoretical, non-existent "ideal" - the "perfectly competitive market" - and using it draw conclusions about actual markets where clearly MR is not zero. There&#39;s no principle of capitalist economics that says that MR is always actually zero, only that there is constant pressure in that direction.[/b]I&#39;m not setting MR=0, try reading my post a little more carefully. Or perhaps you can&#39;t comprehend the product rule?

MR = dR/dQ, you got a problem with this? This is its definition.

R = P*Q, you got a problem with this? This too is a definition.

dR/dQ = P*(dQ/dQ) + (dP/dQ)*Q by the product rule
dR/dQ = P + Q*dP/dQ by simplification
MR = P + Q*dP/dQ by substitution

Then bourgeois economists assert that MC=MR which necessarily requires dP/dQ to be zero. Note that dP/dQ is NOT equal to MR&#33;

If you&#39;ve ever read a microeconomics textbook in your life you&#39;d understand this. It&#39;s not something of my doing, I&#39;m just following the math of the bourgeois economists thus far.

Then what I do is I take the Q integral of both sides and use the discrete Riemann sum. Then I just switch some variables around to get a new formulation of MR. It&#39;s kosher mathematically, but since you don&#39;t know math I&#39;d expect you to be skeptical.


ZX3

As Mr. Red said, the purpose was not to expose a flaw in capitalist economic theory (which fter all, as I pointed out, if true would be a problem for the socialist, and probably to a greater degree). No that was my purpose to point out the flaws in bourgeois economic theory.

You don&#39;t seem to realize that Marxist economic theory is independent of bourgeois economic theory and is thus not criticized by this internal inconsistency of bourgeois economics.

You also seem to think that this is how capitalism really works (MC=MR always). It&#39;s not.

Sorry to rain on your parade.


I should probably adopt the socialist argument about proof; there is no need to prove capitalism, its not relevent to anything, the proof is in the pudding ect ect ect Well, considering the defense of capitalism is through bourgeois economics, this is a serious problem for the defenders of capitalism.

You could ditch the Neoclassical school and go for something else if you&#39;d like, but there really is no better replacement (as of yet) for Neoclassical economics for defenders of the faith.

----------------------------

I must say I&#39;m rather disappointed with the mathematical compotency of the capitalists here :(

[ZX3]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+March 20, 2007 05:27 pm--> (ComradeRed @ March 20, 2007 05:27 pm)

ZX3

As Mr. Red said, the purpose was not to expose a flaw in capitalist economic theory (which fter all, as I pointed out, if true would be a problem for the socialist, and probably to a greater degree). No that was my purpose to point out the flaws in bourgeois economic theory.

You don&#39;t seem to realize that Marxist economic theory is independent of bourgeois economic theory and is thus not criticized by this internal inconsistency of bourgeois economics.

You also seem to think that this is how capitalism really works (MC=MR always). It&#39;s not.

Sorry to rain on your parade.


I should probably adopt the socialist argument about proof; there is no need to prove capitalism, its not relevent to anything, the proof is in the pudding ect ect ect Well, considering the defense of capitalism is through bourgeois economics, this is a serious problem for the defenders of capitalism.

You could ditch the Neoclassical school and go for something else if you&#39;d like, but there really is no better replacement (as of yet) for Neoclassical economics for defenders of the faith.

----------------------------

I must say I&#39;m rather disappointed with the mathematical compotency of the capitalists here :( [/b]
You seem to be unaware that Marxism depends upon capitalism to create the proleteriat who will eventually expropriate the capitalists. Such a flaw in capitalism upsets the Marxist applecart as it suggests production can occur more effectively and more efficiently elswhere (so why bother going through the stages. Just go right to socialism).

As far as the calculus equations go, what i will say is this:

Nice try. I will reiterate: A critique of capitalism is not a proof of socialism. Even if what you say is true, nothing presented demonstrates that socialism will be an improvement. All that one could say is that the tremendous economic engine which capitalism unleashed could have been stronger yet, if... But we will never know the "if" part if the socialists don&#39;t bother to demonstrate it.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:54 pm
You seem to be unaware that Marxism depends upon capitalism to create the proleteriat who will eventually expropriate the capitalists. No I understand that perfectly. I don&#39;t think you understand that capitalism does not work according to Neoclassical theory.


Such a flaw in capitalism upsets the Marxist applecart as it suggests production can occur more effectively and more efficiently elswhere (so why bother going through the stages. Just go right to socialism).You still don&#39;t seem to quite comprehend that capitalism really doesn&#39;t work by "Supply and Demand" and "Marginalism".

Do you disagree with this?

Marginalism, as my first post demonstrates, is internally inconsistent. That means that it inadequately explains capitalism.

That means that you can&#39;t argue "Well capitalism is the best system because it allocates resources most effeciently." It does...when the quantity of goods produced is less than 1 in perfect competition.

This has no implications for Marxist theory since Marxist theory is independent of bourgeois economics.


As far as the calculus equations go, what i will say is this:

Nice try. I will reiterate: A critique of capitalism is not a proof of socialism. I wasn&#39;t "going for" a "proof" of socialism. Nice try.


Even if what you say is true, nothing presented demonstrates that socialism will be an improvement. All that one could say is that the tremendous economic engine which capitalism unleashed could have been stronger yet, if... But we will never know the "if" part if the socialists don&#39;t bother to demonstrate it.No, that&#39;s not what could be said. Nice try, but you fail at math.

What can be said is this: the Neoclassical economic analysis fails even in its ideal situation of a perfectly competitive economy.

It&#39;s internally inconsistent and thus it&#39;s not the correct analysis of how capitalism works.

The arguments that capitalism is a good system from the economists is incorrect. The neoclassical analysis holds if and only if the net output of an industry sector is 0; but then there are no resources to be allocated so it doesn&#39;t matter.

[wtfm8lol]

Then what I do is I take the Q integral of both sides

excuse me if i&#39;m wrong, but i was always under the impression that you needed a continuous function in order to integrate, and it should be pretty obvious that Q represents only whole numbers and so Q represents a sequence and not a function, which are not interchangeable.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:29 pm

Then what I do is I take the Q integral of both sides

excuse me if i&#39;m wrong, but i was always under the impression that you needed a continuous function in order to integrate, and it should be pretty obvious that Q represents only whole numbers and so Q represents a sequence and not a function, which are not interchangeable.
That&#39;s why I use the Riemann sum in the first post, the second post uses regular integrals and it&#39;s an over estimation of the Riemann sum in this case. I think I even make a note of it being an estimation in the second post.

It&#39;s all right for functions f:Z->R to use the Riemann sum for integration (that is a function taking in only integer values; like Q is always an integer value). We do that in lattice quantum field theory too.

Good eye though.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+March 20, 2007 06:37 pm--> (ComradeRed @ March 20, 2007 06:37 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 03:29 pm

Then what I do is I take the Q integral of both sides

excuse me if i&#39;m wrong, but i was always under the impression that you needed a continuous function in order to integrate, and it should be pretty obvious that Q represents only whole numbers and so Q represents a sequence and not a function, which are not interchangeable.
That&#39;s why I use the Riemann sum in the first post, the second post uses regular integrals and it&#39;s an over estimation of the Riemann sum in this case. I think I even make a note of it being an estimation in the second post.

It&#39;s all right for functions f:Z->R to use the Riemann sum for integration (that is a function taking in only integer values; like Q is always an integer value). We do that in lattice quantum field theory too.

Good eye though. [/b]
Ah, i have no idea what a Riemann sum is. I&#39;ll try again in a year or so when I&#39;ve done more calculus :-p

[ComradeRed]

Riemann Sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann+Sum)

[wtfm8lol]

By definition, R = P*Q, but by equation (B) (which is an over-estimation) R = 2*P*ln(Q+1) but this would mean that Q = 2*ln(Q+1); we know that Q=0,1. The only way that we can recover consistency is by having the total amount produced be 0.

if one is known to be an over-estimate, why would you expect them to be equivalent?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:28 pm

By definition, R = P*Q, but by equation (B) (which is an over-estimation) R = 2*P*ln(Q+1) but this would mean that Q = 2*ln(Q+1); we know that Q=0,1. The only way that we can recover consistency is by having the total amount produced be 0.

if one is known to be an over-estimate, why would you expect them to be equivalent?
I&#39;m setting R = Integral MR*dQ, this would be more than actually received since the integral is over R rather than Z.

This is however by acceptable by definition. If you prefer you could use the Riemann sum instead and you get approximately the same thing.

It would be an insignificant difference though in this case. If you want I could calculate out the error and post it later today or tomorrow.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:22 pm
Apparently coasting through half a year of high school Calc has not prepared me for this.

Thank you ComradeRed for (in part) proving to me that going into economics was a very bad idea.
I&#39;ve been studying calculus for a while now, and it takes a while to get the hang of it. It&#39;s a different sort of reasoning, but once you&#39;ve got it down it&#39;s like riding a bicycle.

Just gotta be careful with differential forms.

In my opinion though, High School Calculus is not as good as university calculus. Just my bias against High School ;)

As for economics, discouraging people was not my aim; my aim was only to prove that Neoclassical economics is patently absurd. And that wasn&#39;t too hard, you just had to follow the damn instructions&#33; :lol:

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:50 am
Okey dokey, first some definitions:

Definitions
R = P*Q = revenue
P = Price
Q = Quantity of goods sold
MR = dR/dQ = marginal revenue
MC = marginal cost

The problem

Bourgeois economics says that profit is maximized when MC = MR. Well, MR is treated as a constant with respect to Q (i.e. dMR/dQ = 0 so MR=5 is acceptable whereas MR = 3Q is not).

Now, if we simply go from:

1. MR = dR/dQ

to

2. Integral MR dQ = Integral dR = R

we find that since the spectrum of Q is discrete we switch to the Riemann sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann+sum):

3. SUM^{Q}_{i=0} MR deltaQ_{i} = R

or equivalently:

4. MR*(Q(Q+1)/2) = R

since MR is constant, we can pull it out in front of the sum and use gauss&#39; rule[1].

Multiply both sides through and we get:

5. MR = 2R/(Q(Q+1))

And then recall from bourgeois economics the rule:

6. MR = dR/dQ = P + QdP/dQ

and set it equal to equation 5 to get:

7. 2R/(Q(Q+1)) = P + QdP/dQ
8. 2R/(Q(Q+1)) - P = QdP/dQ

Now bourgeois economists will tell you that dP/dQ = 0 [1] (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fio.uwinnipeg.ca%2F~jtownsen%2F410 3%2Fprofits.pdf&ei=_Ff_RcD0Don0iAGT3Ny4DA&usg=__bAcRZwo3tak5SS72Hdc3DmBdtYI=&sig2=mCPjCnCmkL6JuCEfR0MjNg) this is of course in a competitive economy (in monopoly situations, dP/dQ < 0).

Thus we can simply set equation 8 to zero (Q * 0 = 0) and then add P to both sides.

9. 2R/(Q(Q+1)) = P = R/Q

Divide both sides by R/Q:

10. 2/(Q+1) = 1

which holds if and only if Q=1 which means for any output greater than one commodity the entire kit and kaboodle falls to pieces. (if you plug Q=1 into equation 10 you get 2/2 = 1 everything else would not equal 1).

Worse, when it&#39;s not perfect competition and we&#39;ve got a monopoly, then we end up with:

11. 2/(Q+1) < 1

and Q is an integer value&#33; That means that the biggest value of Q is -2.

----------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] The spectrum of the quantity of goods produced is discrete mathematically. It&#39;s treated such as far as derivatives are concerned, so I argue that we can treat that way as far as integrals are concerned too.
As usual another good post of neoclassical economics by ComradRed.

I personally just like to remind the followers of neoclassicals economics of the assumptions that must be in place to create the smooth downward sloping demand curve for more than one individual that necessary for the theory.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+March 20, 2007 06:25 pm--> (ComradeRed @ March 20, 2007 06:25 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 02:54 pm
You seem to be unaware that Marxism depends upon capitalism to create the proleteriat who will eventually expropriate the capitalists. No I understand that perfectly. I don&#39;t think you understand that capitalism does not work according to Neoclassical theory.


Such a flaw in capitalism upsets the Marxist applecart as it suggests production can occur more effectively and more efficiently elswhere (so why bother going through the stages. Just go right to socialism).You still don&#39;t seem to quite comprehend that capitalism really doesn&#39;t work by "Supply and Demand" and "Marginalism".

Do you disagree with this?

Marginalism, as my first post demonstrates, is internally inconsistent. That means that it inadequately explains capitalism.

That means that you can&#39;t argue "Well capitalism is the best system because it allocates resources most effeciently." It does...when the quantity of goods produced is less than 1 in perfect competition.

This has no implications for Marxist theory since Marxist theory is independent of bourgeois economics.


As far as the calculus equations go, what i will say is this:

Nice try. I will reiterate: A critique of capitalism is not a proof of socialism. I wasn&#39;t "going for" a "proof" of socialism. Nice try.


Even if what you say is true, nothing presented demonstrates that socialism will be an improvement. All that one could say is that the tremendous economic engine which capitalism unleashed could have been stronger yet, if... But we will never know the "if" part if the socialists don&#39;t bother to demonstrate it.No, that&#39;s not what could be said. Nice try, but you fail at math.

What can be said is this: the Neoclassical economic analysis fails even in its ideal situation of a perfectly competitive economy.

It&#39;s internally inconsistent and thus it&#39;s not the correct analysis of how capitalism works.

The arguments that capitalism is a good system from the economists is incorrect. The neoclassical analysis holds if and only if the net output of an industry sector is 0; but then there are no resources to be allocated so it doesn&#39;t matter. [/b]
I&#39;ve heard of this old critique of capitalism years ago. It was demolished long ago, but I&#39;ll have to think a bit as to who did so as to search for it on the web.

In general though, the critique reminds me of Reagan&#39;s comment that economists sees something working in practice, but question whether it will work in theory.

Bottom line remains: The critique proves nothing about socialism. Socialism has to be defended on its own terms.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:09 pm

Bottom line remains: The critique proves nothing about socialism. Socialism has to be defended on its own terms.
You are like a broken record. This thread has nothing to do with Socialism. It is about Capitalism. Further more, it is not even specifically saying Capitalism does not work, it is showing that one of the more popular theories backing it doesn&#39;t work. Why not admit this went over your head, rather than bringing up completely irrelevent matters?

[Tungsten]

Perhaps you would argue that Austrian economics or praxeology is not metaphysical, but considering they reject the use of empiricism and instead use "self-evident propositions" that would kind of make them metaphysicians (it cannot be denied that rationalism believes knowledge "transcends" reality --otherwise they&#39;d be empiricists; but now as a rationalist you necessarily are trapped in the realm of metaphysics).
I&#39;m not a rationalist or an empiricist. Sorry to dissapoint you. That&#39;s always been a false dichotomy- both camps are partially, but not fully right. The truth lies in the middle.

What&#39;s even funnier is that the Austrians, being rationalists, reject math as a valid tool Talk about antinomies.
And you&#39;ve rejected praxeology, also a valid tool. That makes you wrong too.

Well, considering the defense of capitalism is through bourgeois economics, this is a serious problem for the defenders of capitalism.
Not the only defence by any means. It&#39;s a bit a late in the day to start claiming that capitalism doesn&#39;t work, like saying that iron ships don&#39;t float.

You could ditch the Neoclassical school and go for something else if you&#39;d like,
Now comes the crunch: Replace it with what? Marxist economics? What a great sucess that&#39;s been&#33; It&#39;s not merely good enough to provide a critique of capitalism- you have to put up your own stuff in it&#39;s place. Let&#39;s see your "stuff".
Cryotank Screams

I think it&#39;s funny how ComradeRed, totally exposes a flaw in capitalist economics with theory, and the capitalists have absolutely nothing to say; your my hero,
Oh he&#39;s exposed what he thinks is a flaw...I guess that proves that socialism (or whatever crap he&#39;s into nowadays) must work perfectly. Dream on.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:44 am

Perhaps you would argue that Austrian economics or praxeology is not metaphysical, but considering they reject the use of empiricism and instead use "self-evident propositions" that would kind of make them metaphysicians (it cannot be denied that rationalism believes knowledge "transcends" reality --otherwise they&#39;d be empiricists; but now as a rationalist you necessarily are trapped in the realm of metaphysics).
I&#39;m not a rationalist or an empiricist. Sorry to dissapoint you. That&#39;s always been a false dichotomy- both camps are partially, but not fully right. The truth lies in the middle.
Right, Austrians just criticize Empiricism and support Rationalism "without being either" :lol:



What&#39;s even funnier is that the Austrians, being rationalists, reject math as a valid tool Talk about antinomies.
And you&#39;ve rejected praxeology, also a valid tool. That makes you wrong too. No, it really isn&#39;t a valid tool. If you had bothered to understand my post you&#39;d know better.



Well, considering the defense of capitalism is through bourgeois economics, this is a serious problem for the defenders of capitalism.
Not the only defence by any means. It&#39;s a bit a late in the day to start claiming that capitalism doesn&#39;t work, like saying that iron ships don&#39;t float. Black Swan fallacy.



You could ditch the Neoclassical school and go for something else if you&#39;d like,
Now comes the crunch: Replace it with what? Marxist economics? What a great sucess that&#39;s been&#33; It&#39;s not merely good enough to provide a critique of capitalism- you have to put up your own stuff in it&#39;s place. Let&#39;s see your "stuff". The Empirical Strength of the Labor Theory of Value, *****. (http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf)



I think it&#39;s funny how ComradeRed, totally exposes a flaw in capitalist economics with theory, and the capitalists have absolutely nothing to say; your my hero,
Oh he&#39;s exposed what he thinks is a flaw...I guess that proves that socialism (or whatever crap he&#39;s into nowadays) must work perfectly. Dream on. Well thank goodness you have no reading comprehension&#33;

My point was that Neoclassical economics is nonsense. You disagree? Well tough luck, you have no argument on your side whereas I&#39;ve got a proof.

Demagorgon

Thanks, but I still don&#39;t think ZX3 will get it :lol:

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:35 am
Why does every thread in the OI no matter what it started out as turn into a commuism sucks thread?
I was thinking the same thing...

"Neoclassical Economics is mathematically incoherent..."

Rebuttle: "Communism sucks&#33;" :lol:

Rather disappointing :(

[ComradeRed]

Important Information on a Mathematical Error

No it doesn&#39;t change the criticism, it is actually more damning than before (cheers to Zempano for catching it&#33;).

Equation 3 is a double integral of MR, thus taking the Q integral of R and setting the two to be equal we get instead (take the Q integral of the right hand side of 9):

A) 2R/(Q(Q+1)) = R

then divide both sides by R and multiply by Q(Q+1)

B) 2 = Q(Q+1)

and then this holds iff Q=1. The logic remained invariant interestingly enough.

[ComradeRed]

Actually doing some more math, it&#39;s relatively funny there&#39;s another contradiction.

By definition R=P*Q.

MR*Q(Q+1) = 2* Integral RdQ

take the Q derivative of both sides (recall Q is discrete not continuous so we use the limit definition of the derivative):

MR*[(Q+1)(Q+2) - Q(Q+1)] = 2*R

and rearrange the parenthetic terms:

MR*[(Q+1)(Q+2-Q)] = MR*[2*(Q+1)] = 2R

divide both sides by two:

MR(Q+1) = R

recall MR=P in this ideal state, plug it in and also recall R=P*Q

P*(Q+1) = R = P*Q

divide both sides by P:

Q+1 = Q

and you get 1=0.

[Tungsten]

Right, Austrians just criticize Empiricism and support Rationalism "without being either" :lol:
Get lost, I&#39;m no "purist"- I have ideas of my own. I reject what doesn&#39;t make sense/doesn&#39;t work and support what does.

No, it really isn&#39;t a valid tool. If you had bothered to understand my post you&#39;d know better.
Your post offered no real critique of praxeology.

Black Swan fallacy.
Citing reality is now a logical fallacy is it? When have logical fallacies ever bothered you?

The Empirical Strength of the Labor Theory of Value, *****. (http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf)
The problem here being that values are subjective, and not labour-driven.


My point was that Neoclassical economics is nonsense. You disagree? Well tough luck, you have no argument on your side whereas I&#39;ve got a proof.
But the problem here is that your "proof" consists of a list of phony equations, whereas mine consists of empirical reality. I&#39;m sorry to say that I carry the trump card.

[Publius]

As for economics, discouraging people was not my aim; my aim was only to prove that Neoclassical economics is patently absurd. And that wasn&#39;t too hard, you just had to follow the damn instructions&#33; :lol:

It was a good kind of discouragement. One I realized what i was going to learn was probably bunk. Two I learned it would take a hell of a lot of math. And three, I like other stuff more.

Also, praxeology seems to me very much like dialectics: a fundamentally meaningless way of dressing up obvious truths in arcane verbiage. That you can understand behavior through nonsense like &#39;man acts&#39; (People do stuff.) is absurd. It would be like doing physics starting with axioms like &#39;things exist.&#39; Well, yeah, they do. But...what?

Since my praxeology is rusty (read: nonexistent) I hit up the always-on-point Lew Rockwell for a refresher. I got this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard38.html

So let&#39;s skip ahead some, we&#39;ve already got the aphorism, scratch, that axiom, &#39;man acts&#39;, and we&#39;re moving to:
Let us consider some of the immediate implications of the action axiom. Action implies that the individual&#39;s behavior is purposive, in short, that it is directed toward goals. Furthermore, the fact of his action implies that he has consciously chosen certain means to reach his goals. Since he wishes to attain these goals, they must be valuable to him; accordingly he must have values that govern his choices. That he employs means implies that he believes he has the technological knowledge that certain means will achieve his desired ends. Let us note that praxeology does not assume that a person&#39;s choice of values or goals is wise or proper or that he has chosen the technologically correct method of reaching them. All that praxeology asserts is that the individual actor adopts goals and believes, whether erroneously or correctly, that he can arrive at them by the employment of certain means.

What nonsense.

First &#39;act&#39; doesn&#39;t even seem to imply purpose. Can you clear this up for me? How does &#39;man acts&#39; imply purpose? How would you differentiate a man choosing to pick up a cup vs. a well-designed android, or vs. a &#39;zombie&#39; picking up the same cup? The &#39;act&#39; would be the same, but the &#39;purpose&#39; would be different or non-existent in the latter examples.

Next we get &#39;Furthermore, the fact of his action implies that he has consciously chosen certain means to reach his goals.&#39; Again, this does not necessarily follow. You can commit the action of moving your leg without ever choosing to move it if you&#39;re hit with a small hammer at a certain point on your knee. This rather trite, trivial example by itself extirpates praxeology.

He concludes this amazing paragraph with: &#39;All that praxeology asserts is that the individual actor adopts goals and believes, whether erroneously or correctly, that he can arrive at them by the employment of certain means.&#39;

But he hasn&#39;t even demonstrated this, he&#39;s just asserted that it&#39;s true because &#39;man acts&#39;. It&#39;s really quite pitiful.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

ComradeRed - Slight digression, mind explaining the Black Swan fallacy to me? :)

-Alex

[Tungsten]

Since my praxeology is rusty (read: nonexistent)
You used to be a libertarian?

First &#39;act&#39; doesn&#39;t even seem to imply purpose. Can you clear this up for me? How does &#39;man acts&#39; imply purpose?
Well we wouldn&#39;t act otherwise, would he? It might sound tautological, but every action implies a purpose. When was the last time you did something for "no reason"?

How would you differentiate a man choosing to pick up a cup vs. a well-designed android, or vs. a &#39;zombie&#39; picking up the same cup? The &#39;act&#39; would be the same, but the &#39;purpose&#39; would be different or non-existent in the latter examples.
But the zombie/android isn&#39;t "human" in the psychological sense. A zombie/android doesn&#39;t actually think or make volitional choices. The zombie runs on instinct, the android does whatever it&#39;s programmed to do and nothing more. This is where the communists fuck up; they think all of humanity consists of robots who act without reason, or do whatever we&#39;re conditioned to do- and all that&#39;s needed to achieve paradise is the right program/conditioning. It&#39;s misanthropy at it&#39;s finest. Nothing short of complete brainwashing or drugging would achieve that result (which would effectively involve turning humans into non-humans).

Next we get &#39;Furthermore, the fact of his action implies that he has consciously chosen certain means to reach his goals.&#39; Again, this does not necessarily follow. You can commit the action of moving your leg without ever choosing to move it if you&#39;re hit with a small hammer at a certain point on your knee.
Are you saying all human action and therefore economic decisions are responses of the same order (unconscious reflexes)? I find that difficult to believe.

He concludes this amazing paragraph with: &#39;All that praxeology asserts is that the individual actor adopts goals and believes, whether erroneously or correctly, that he can arrive at them by the employment of certain means.&#39;

But he hasn&#39;t even demonstrated this, he&#39;s just asserted that it&#39;s true because &#39;man acts&#39;.
I would have thought it self evident. Perhaps you ought to ask yourself why you act. Is it a knee-jerk response? Is every man on the planet a zombie engaged in a perpetual, unconscious sleepwalk? Are you?

Perhaps I&#39;m reading more than is actually there, but that&#39;s always been my take on it.


ComradeRed - Slight digression, mind explaining the Black Swan fallacy to me?
And while he&#39;s at it, he can explain how it was relevent to what I wrote.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:44 pm





You used to be a libertarian?

Shit, I&#39;ve got a Thomas DiLorenzo book sitting on bookshelf as we speak.



Well we wouldn&#39;t act otherwise, would he? It might sound tautological, but every action implies a purpose. When was the last time you did something for "no reason"?

&#39;When was the last time&#39;? Isn&#39;t that empirical? I thought we were talking logic? Logically, an act does not have to have a purpose. A purposeless act is logically possible, is it not? If not, then you&#39;ve simply defined the problem out of existence and have done nothing to actually solve it.

It is logically possible for there to be an act that is not guided by a purpose, is it not? If so, my point is made.



But the zombie/android isn&#39;t "human" in the psychological sense.

But from the outside, you have no idea if it&#39;s human or not.

Just watch a person pick up a cup, and you have no idea whether it&#39;s a human, a crafty android, or even a victim of somnambulism.

Well, actually, you have an empirical, inductive guide, but we can&#39;t use that, can we?

You have demonstrate logically, deductively, that the person is actually a person, without knowing anything but outward behavior, which can be faked.

I believe the phrase is &#39;hoisted by your own petard&#39;. When you throw out empiricism you best not get caught using empiricism to prop up your argument, as praxeology obviously does.



A zombie/android doesn&#39;t actually think or make volitional choices. The zombie runs on instinct, the android does whatever it&#39;s programmed to do and nothing more.

My point exactly.


This is where the communists fuck up; they think all of humanity consists of robots who act without reason,

Robots who act without reason?


or do whatever we&#39;re conditioned to do- and all that&#39;s needed to achieve paradise is the right program/conditioning. It&#39;s misanthropy at it&#39;s finest. Nothing short of complete brainwashing or drugging would achieve that result (which would effectively involve turning humans into non-humans).

Well, this might be true.

Communism may require some manner of creating Clockwork Oranges, to truly work. Who knows.



Are you saying all human action and therefore economic decisions are responses of the same order (unconscious reflexes)? I find that difficult to believe.

I&#39;m just pointing out an obvious case of an action that doesn&#39;t require volition.

And again, you might find it difficult to believe, but you can&#39;t actually disprove it. If I were to assert that all human behavior is really just conditioning, you would be hard-pressed to deductively, or praxeologically, or whatever, prove me wrong.

Solipsism poses a problem.



I would have thought it self evident. Perhaps you ought to ask yourself why you act. Is it a knee-jerk response? Is every man on the planet a zombie engaged in a perpetual, unconscious sleepwalk? Are you?

Well, first off I&#39;m something of a determinist, or at least a materialist reductionist. I don&#39;t think we&#39;re all &#39;zombies&#39; per se, but I do believe that all our decisions are based on our physical brain states, and thus can be replicated to reproduced, if only currently in theory. This doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t think we have &#39;free will&#39;, as long as the term free will is coherently defined to move it away from nonsense like souls.

So I guess in a way, I do think we&#39;re zombies, in that we do exactly what our physical brains are arranged to do. But I still have room for a sense of will.

That being said, the reason things like that are evident to me is that I use induction, empiricism. I didn&#39;t just one-day logically decide "I really the need the axiom &#39;man acts&#39; to make sense of the world.

But honestly, try to think about your thinking for a moment. Every now and then you&#39;ll make a decision, and then soon after realize exactly why you made it. Say you want to pick a word at random, and you pick "apple". Now you think you&#39;re just drawing a word from the reserves at random. But right after you do it, you might realize you were talking about apples just a few moments before, and thus the concept had some primacy in your mind. At the time you made the decision, you not cognizant of this fact, but the influence was still obviously there. This is what I&#39;m talking about. You can make decisions and have a reason for doing it and still not fully understand that reason.

I&#39;m also not saying attempt to define or understand human behavior or action through logic is necessarily doomed to fail, just when it completely ignores empiricism and uses only axioms. You won&#39;t get past axioms if you ONLY start with axioms.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Tungsten+March 21, 2007 12:20 pm--> (Tungsten &#064; March 21, 2007 12:20 pm)
Right, Austrians just criticize Empiricism and support Rationalism "without being either" :lol:
Get lost, I&#39;m no "purist"- I have ideas of my own. I reject what doesn&#39;t make sense/doesn&#39;t work and support what does.[/b] You think for yourself? :o What a shock.



No, it really isn&#39;t a valid tool. If you had bothered to understand my post you&#39;d know better.Your post offered no real critique of praxeology. No true scotsman fallacy.

If you want to think that some method divorced from reality can derive a postereori facts, then by all means give some proof.

The definition of "acts" is a rather fuzzy term, come to think of it.



Black Swan fallacy.
Citing reality is now a logical fallacy is it? When have logical fallacies ever bothered you? Citing reality is perfectly acceptable if you do it properly.



The Empirical Strength of the Labor Theory of Value, *****. (http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf)
The problem here being that values are subjective, and not labour-driven. And your complete lack of mathematical formalism and empirical data seems to support this conclusion. :rolleyes:



My point was that Neoclassical economics is nonsense. You disagree? Well tough luck, you have no argument on your side whereas I&#39;ve got a proof.But the problem here is that your "proof" consists of a list of phony equations, whereas mine consists of empirical reality. I&#39;m sorry to say that I carry the trump card. You have no equations, hell you aren&#39;t even looking at reality.

These equations can be found in elementary microeconomic textbooks. Or are these too wrong? :lol:

You&#39;re using word games trying to derive from "Man acts" - an a postereori statement interestingly enough - some sort of "argument". There is no empiricism in that.

Oddly enough define "Human" and "to Act" in your usuage. Something that&#39;s not self-referential (e.g. "A human is a thing that acts; acting is what humans do").

Using good ol&#39; Webster, a man is not something that has "acting" in its definition; you&#39;d need to use empiricism to assert "Man acts" to be true. Or do you wish to redefine "Man"?

Perhaps this doesn&#39;t bother you since you&#39;re not a real Austrian and empiricism doesn&#39;t phase you. But that would make you inconsistent with the Austrian school, since Austrians loudly criticize empiricism at every given chance.

How, I wonder, could they reconcile the contradiction that they themselves used empiricism to formulate the "Action axiom"? :huh:

Perhaps you would prefer metaphysics to economics, there is no math there. No empiricism either. Sounds oddly familiar to Austrian economics.


Originally posted by BurnTheOliveBranch+--> (BurnTheOliveBranch) ComradeRed - Slight digression, mind explaining the Black Swan fallacy to me?[/b] I&#39;ve seen 100 swans, all of them white. Therefore all swans are white.

Not necessarily so, in Australia there are (or at least, were) black swans.

It has to do with sufficient evidence to justify a proposition as empirically true. You could see every swan in Europe, Africa, and the Americas and you still would be wrong with asserting "All swans are black."


Tungsten [email protected]
And while he&#39;s at it, he can explain how it was relevent to what I wrote. Capitalism&#39;s been around for what 300 to 500 years in Europe and less than a century or two elsewhere?

To say "Well, after 150 years, we can conclude Marx is 100% wrong about capitalism" is sloppy.

There simply isn&#39;t enough evidence to conclude that. If you had all the evidence, forward and backwards in time, there would be no problem. You however can&#39;t do that, no one can.

But since this is more like an "experiment" which we are all a part of, we don&#39;t really know when it&#39;s "over enough" to reach a conclusion. In this regard it&#39;s somewhat like George Soros&#39; Reflexivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_soros#Reflexivity.2C_financial_markets.2C_a nd_economic_theory).

(Interesting side note: Soros interestingly enough uses the right math to describe people with cosmological logic.)


Publius
I&#39;m also not saying attempt to define or understand human behavior or action through logic is necessarily doomed to fail, just when it completely ignores empiricism and uses only axioms. You won&#39;t get past axioms if you ONLY start with axioms. Well, you won&#39;t consistently get past axioms if you only start with axioms. You could get to contradictions and then derive anything you&#39;d like.

It&#39;s interesting to see how Austrians are tacitly empirical when formulating their axioms but then cease being so when they&#39;re "deducing". Talk about consistency :lol:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 21, 2007 09:37 am--> (Demogorgon @ March 21, 2007 09:37 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 12:09 pm

Bottom line remains: The critique proves nothing about socialism. Socialism has to be defended on its own terms.
You are like a broken record. This thread has nothing to do with Socialism. It is about Capitalism. Further more, it is not even specifically saying Capitalism does not work, it is showing that one of the more popular theories backing it doesn&#39;t work. Why not admit this went over your head, rather than bringing up completely irrelevent matters? [/b]
I am well aware of what Mr. Red&#39;s purpose was- to distract from the obvious problem.

I await the thread which attempts to prove socialism (or at least the thread the servers will let me reply to). One would think on a board full of socialists/communists/anarchists would be easy enough to find. After all, if it can&#39;t be proven, well then...

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:22 am

I am well aware of what Mr. Red&#39;s purpose was- to distract from the obvious problem.

I await the thread which attempts to prove socialism (or at least the thread the servers will let me reply to). One would think on a board full of socialists/communists/anarchists would be easy enough to find. After all, if it can&#39;t be proven, well then...
Well while you are waiting why don&#39;t you do this little exercise?

First of all tell me what you want proven by socialism? Do you want us to prove it exists? That it can exist? That it will exist? Or do you wan us to prove that it works? Or that it sometimes works? Or that it conceivably works? And if you wish us to prove it works, tell us, works at what? Works at achieving equality? Works at ahieving a strong economy? Works at achieving a sustainable or viable society?

Your question could mean anything, it&#39;s hardly somethiung you can answer without clarificiation. Various versions of these questions have been answered by various socialist economists. If you would be so kind as to tell us which variation of that question you want answered, I&#39;m sure we can point you in the right direction. Unfortunately though, you won&#39;t be getting a snappy one sentence answer that you are presumably holding out for.

Now until you have cleared up that issue, can you perhaps stop hijacking every thread with your silly questions?

One more exercise though: prove capitalism. You say it works. What does it work at? For it to work, presumably it has a goal and it achieves it.Tell us what this goal is, how it achieves it and why this goal is so important that it trumps various things capitalism does not achieve.

[Tungsten]

&#39;When was the last time&#39;? Isn&#39;t that empirical? I thought we were talking logic?
This is a false dichotomy, but the question still remains. When was the last time?

It is logically possible for there to be an act that is not guided by a purpose, is it not? If so, my point is made.
Possible if we were as I described- zombies or machines, but we&#39;re not. Not most of us, anyway.

But from the outside, you have no idea if it&#39;s human or not.

Just watch a person pick up a cup, and you have no idea whether it&#39;s a human, a crafty android, or even a victim of somnambulism.

Well, actually, you have an empirical, inductive guide, but we can&#39;t use that, can we?
Why can&#39;t we? Okay, let&#39;s reject induction and use.....? What do we used instead?

You have demonstrate logically, deductively, that the person is actually a person, without knowing anything but outward behavior, which can be faked.
Why? They might also be alien invaders from Mars, but where&#39;s the proof of that? I&#39;d argue that your skepticism has no rational basis; generally, people do act with purpose. And some generalisations need to be made if we&#39;re to stay out of the realm of absurdity.

I&#39;m just pointing out an obvious case of an action that doesn&#39;t require volition.

And again, you might find it difficult to believe, but you can&#39;t actually disprove it.[

Let me guess- you&#39;ve discovered Karl Popper. :D

If I were to assert that all human behavior is really just conditioning, you would be hard-pressed to deductively, or praxeologically, or whatever, prove me wrong.
But here&#39;s my real rub with Popper&#39;s theory:

I&#39;ve changed the wording of your statement.

If I were to assert that Santa Claus existed, you would be hard-pressed to deductively, or praxeologically, or whatever, prove me wrong.

I would, too. But that doesn&#39;t mean he exists.

For starters, the burden of proof is being misplaced and you&#39;ve eliminated inductive logic, with nothing valid to replace it. Can that really be called science?

So I guess in a way, I do think we&#39;re zombies, in that we do exactly what our physical brains are arranged to do. But I still have room for a sense of will.
Compatibilism is the way to go.

-


No true scotsman fallacy.
Correction, when I said "no real critique" mean "no critique".

If you want to think that some method divorced from reality can derive a postereori facts, then by all means give some proof.
But you haven&#39;t shown how it&#39;s divorced from reality.

The definition of "acts" is a rather fuzzy term, come to think of it.How is it fuzzy when used in this context?

And your complete lack of mathematical formalism and empirical data seems to support this conclusion.
Mathematics doesn&#39;t come into it. Empirical data? People&#39;s values are different. Are you disputing this?

You&#39;re using word games trying to derive from "Man acts" - an a postereori statement interestingly enough - some sort of "argument". There is no empiricism in that.
Men certainly do act- I see them doing it every day and they wouldn&#39;t last very long if they didn&#39;t. There are no word games there.

Oddly enough define "Human" and "to Act" in your usuage. Something that&#39;s not self-referential (e.g. "A human is a thing that acts; acting is what humans do").

Using good ol&#39; Webster, a man is not something that has "acting" in its definition; you&#39;d need to use empiricism to assert "Man acts" to be true. Or do you wish to redefine "Man"?
No one said it does. Strangely, you won&#39;t find "drive a car" as part of an essential characteristic of man either, but that doesn&#39;t follow that men do not "drive cars".

How, I wonder, could they reconcile the contradiction that they themselves used empiricism to formulate the "Action axiom"?
They must have used empirical evidence, then mustn&#39;t they. I&#39;m not disputing that.

[Publius]

This is a false dichotomy,

I&#39;m not the one caught up in this dichotomy (dialectic?), the Austrians are. I saw an article with my own eyes on Mises.org about how empiricism was &#39;mainstream science&#39; and that it was nonsense, etc. I believe CommieRed posted it earlier in this thread.

Though I guess since I used by senses to read the article, my conclusions are suspect.

:lol:



but the question still remains. When was the last time?

Last Tuesday? It&#39;s a bad question because and I can already see where it will lead: into obfuscation and equivocation on what the word &#39;acts&#39; means, where Austrians define it as &#39;whatever proves me right&#39;.

But I guess to confrotn your question, I would say that I have no idea. I can&#39;t exactly remember acts that I commit for no reason, now can I? Think about it.




Possible if we were as I described- zombies or machines, but we&#39;re not. Not most of us, anyway.

I don&#39;t mean actually possible, I mean stricly logically possible. Can an &#39;act&#39; exist independantly of a purpose, logically?



Why can&#39;t we? Okay, let&#39;s reject induction and use.....? What do we used instead?


Ask the Aussies, not me.

I&#39;m sorry if I&#39;m not accurately representing your views. I&#39;m merely ascribing the views of the Austrians on you, as it&#39;s easy and convenient. Feel free to set my straight. On what do you agree and on what you differ with the Austrians?



Why? They might also be alien invaders from Mars, but where&#39;s the proof of that? I&#39;d argue that your skepticism has no rational basis; generally, people do act with purpose. And some generalisations need to be made if we&#39;re to stay out of the realm of absurdity.

So you just argue that the opposition to your view is wrong out of hand? Can you not see how people might have a problem with this?

"You&#39;re obviously wrong, because I&#39;m right." Not exactly compelling. I&#39;m trying to press you to explain why radical skepticism isn&#39;t in order. Maybe you have a compelling reason, you sound like you do, but my point was that Austrians DON&#39;T. I&#39;d very much like to debate a doctrinaire Austrian praxeologist. The results would be most funny.


Let me guess- you&#39;ve discovered Karl Popper. :D

I haven&#39;t actually read Popper, but I&#39;m been accused of using his ideas on more than one occasion.

&#39;Great minds think alike&#39; I guess. :lol:



But here&#39;s my real rub with Popper&#39;s theory:

I&#39;ve changed the wording of your statement.

If I were to assert that Santa Claus existed, you would be hard-pressed to deductively, or praxeologically, or whatever, prove me wrong.

I would, too. But that doesn&#39;t mean he exists.

I&#39;m not saying "because you can&#39;t prove it false, it&#39;s true." That would be a rash thing to say.

What I&#39;m saying is, the Austrians have no means of ever possibly proving my assertion wrong, because you have to emprically test claims like that. Austrians disown the only means by which their philosophy could ever be proven true. Ironic, eh?

Using only praxeology, you cannot defeat the idea that behaviorism is true. Using empricism, you can. Behaviorism has been discredited. Score 1 for science.

That&#39;s my point.



For starters, the burden of proof is being misplaced and you&#39;ve eliminated inductive logic, with nothing valid to replace it. Can that really be called science?

I&#39;ve not done that, the Austrians have.

Are you sure you really want to be associated with these people?

You seem like a sensible guy -- why hang around with miscreants?


Compatibilism is the way to go.


Yeah. But I&#39;m not actually averse to determinism in the way that many people are. A lot of people just recoil from the idea to begin with, because they think it destroys freedom or dignity. Of course it does no such thing, but they usually don&#39;t get that far with the idea.

I think this ties in somehow to my atheistic tendency, but that&#39;s enough amatuer psychology for one day.

[Publius]

I am well aware of what Mr. Red&#39;s purpose was- to distract from the obvious problem.

I await the thread which attempts to prove socialism (or at least the thread the servers will let me reply to). One would think on a board full of socialists/communists/anarchists would be easy enough to find. After all, if it can&#39;t be proven, well then...

You seem to be committing the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium): that simply because something cannot be proven false, it is true, or that simply because something cannot be proven true, it is false.