Kaleidic Society - All Comments

re: Healthcare and Rationing

ziragt — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:08:27 GMT

You're right about the informational problem and this relates to the entrepreneurial function. Entrepreneurs need both competition and prices to act as constraints and, in Mises' words, "aids to the mind," respectively. They use the information given by the price system to rationally allocate resources. Without this, a government system will find it almost impossible to allocate services to those who most need them.

re: Is regret compatible with Praxeology?

Christopher — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:19:34 GMT

This is a great post. Being relatively new to the extreme depths of Austrian thinking, please excuse me if my comment comes off as unintelligible or too simplistic. However, is the answer as simple as saying that though one may regret their decision in the long run, the initial choice is between the action (perceived as quenching a desire, and thus making momentary life better) and inaction (perceived as maintaining some sort of status quo and hence not making life better)? Is not the whole basis behind human action that man acts to satisfy a desire which he believes will make his life better at that given point? And given that, no action can be considered irrational because it was rational at the time the decision was made? If that is the correct way to look at it, then regret is an unfortunate byproduct of acting, inevitable and real.

re: Healthcare and Rationing

DD5 — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:27:37 GMT

"But we can use the insights of public choice and standard theory to show that, at the least, we shouldn't expect the government to outperform the market without extremely extenuating circumstances."

Why be so charitable?

In the absent of free market prices, there is no rational way to allocate any resources.

You seem to be fixed too much on the incentive problem, but what about the information problem?

The government of course, will ration, and will ultimately decide what to produce, how much, and where it goes. So you don't need a formal death panel to decide if grandma lives or dies.

re: Subjectivism and Traditional Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Could They Be Incompatible?

ziragt — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:35:05 GMT

This is a problem because orthodox ABCT looks at production as a series of stages through time. My point is capital is more like a web of entrepreneurial plans, for whom time may be a component, but not necessarily the most important one.

re: Is regret compatible with Praxeology?

zefreak — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:08:31 GMT

"However, this leads to a new problem: why would an agent choose only to pay attention to an inferior belief?"

This is why Mises regarded preference to be demonstrated through action. The agent is truly not choosing an "inferior" belief, if by that you mean one situated lower on his value scale. He is unable to resist drink because no matter how much part of him wishes to stop for future benefits, it does not meet or exceed his desire to quell the impulse necessitating drink. If you were to ask him, he would say he is doing it against his own will, and against all reason. He may not be lying, he may be engaging in "magical thinking". This is why you must determine value and preference through action.

re: Subjectivism and Traditional Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Could They Be Incompatible?

zefreak — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:01:38 GMT

I don't see how this is a problem. ABCT, to my knowledge, is precisely as you describe it in the final paragraph. I only ever see qualitative predictions based on interest distortions, IE lower rates of interest stimulate longer investment projects more than shorter. Is this accurate, and if so, how is it not compatible with the "subjective" notion of capital?

re: Three Trends in Austrian Economics

ziragt — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:29:46 GMT

I believe that it’s partly a matter of emphasis. Lachmann liked to focus on the inability of economic theory to “prove” that a free-market will lead to coordination. For Kirzner and the others, the fact that the market was able to coordinate action in the real world was enough proof, so they emphasized the tendency toward coordination. Of course, Lachmann also emphasized this in his work on institutions.

re: Defining Heterodox Economics

martinf — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:24:42 GMT

Evolutionary economics (Winter, Nelson...) does economics using maths, but they are not in the mainstream either.

But that might be a good approximation, given that most papers published in the "best" journals have that math flavor.

re: Is regret compatible with Praxeology?

martinf — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:07:53 GMT

Good thoughts. Praxeology doesn't deal with WHY someone chooses A instead of B. How passions, impulsiveness, and all that determine action is important, but that might be the role of psychology, not of praxeology.

re: Three Trends in Austrian Economics

martinf — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:02:20 GMT

That's an interesting division of the current Austrian School. The point you make that all these 'research programmes' have arised from Menger's ideas is very interesting.

With respect to the view of the market process, there might be only two groups (well, this is another possible classification): those who believe that the market is above all an equilibrating process (Mises-Hayek-Rothbard-Kirzner) and those who view two forces that are always competing: equilibrating and disequilibrating forces (Lachmann-Shackle-Rizzo...)

Do you think it is possible to unify all these distinct set of ideas together? Hayek-Mises-Kirzner with those of Lachmann. Depending on empirical considerations, in some situations, Lachmann's view may be more accurate, and in others the other one.

re: Defining Heterodox Economics

MatthewWilliam — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:22:51 GMT

This website does a good breakdown of the taxonomy of economics schools: homepage.newschool.edu/het

re: Bringing Weber Back into Economics: Introduction

ziragt — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:36:55 GMT

Does anyone know how to get rid of that text without deleting the post entirely?

re: Bringing Weber Back into Economics: Introduction

laminustacitus — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:13:53 GMT

A formatting tip: if you use a word processor to type your blog, always preview your post to ensure that there is no strange script left because of the processor, as there is in the beginning of this post.

re: Bringing Weber Back into Economics: Introduction

Vitor — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:45:47 GMT

I love Weber, one of the few socilogists who makes sense. His analysis of the protestianism ethics is a great example how descentralization and emphasys on the the individual contributes to a better society and economical development.