A lot of times when I'm debating anticapitalists, I come across this assertion that my free market theories "assume that people are economically rational, when they're not." When I probe them on what they mean by this statement, I can never seem to make heads nor tails of what they're getting at.
Is anyone familiar with this argument?
Surely, they can't be talking about rationality in the Misesian sense... it's logically incoherent to say that people don't employ scarce means to achieve desired ends, that they don't aim to achieve the most valued attainable end with each unit of a good, etc.
I've always kind of assumed that they meant that economic actors aren't very good entrepreneurs--i.e. when I say that if there is a profit opportunity then people will seek it out, the anticapitalist's retort that people aren't economically rational implies that people aren't smart enough entrepreneurs to find those profit opportunities. Thus, on the assumption that that is what the anticapitalist means when he says "people are not economically rational," my response has typically been that it doesn't matter how "rational" economic actors are in that sense, because the functioning of market forces work just the same. Those who satisfy consumer demand best will, of a course, be the ones who make the profits and hence have the most ability to bid away the means of production, and hence more and more become the movers and shapers of the market, whereas the exact opposite holds true for those who are worst at satisfying consumer demand. Yet, the anticapitalist always responds that that has nothing to do with what they're arguing.
So, I suppose I'm at wit's end here.
Has anyone here ever pinned down an anticapitalist who's used the "Your argument assumes people are economically rational, when they're not" assertion, and gotten them to explain just what, exactly, they mean by this?
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Well, it sounds like they are idiots (most anti-capitalists are), and you're wasting your time. Just stop discussing with them.
You won't make any progress in a discussion with (1) people who are arguing dishonestly or (2) people who are willing to use force to gain compliance.
Walk away from both, and enjoy your life.
FYI, there is a lot of low hanging fruit out there. People without the ignorant and aggressive pathology of anti-capitalists. People you can share your knowledge with, people you can build relationships with. Why ignore them, for these insecure ideologues?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Freiheit: liberty student: So.... ask them what they mean by rational. If they try to argue that some actions are less rational than others, then you can ask them if that is the case whenever two people express different preferences. I have asked them. But the most lucid answer I've gotten is that "people don't act according to your utopian Misesian hypotheses" or they just dismiss me altogether and discontinue the discussion, because I'm "clearly incapable of understanding REAL economics."
liberty student: So.... ask them what they mean by rational. If they try to argue that some actions are less rational than others, then you can ask them if that is the case whenever two people express different preferences.
So.... ask them what they mean by rational. If they try to argue that some actions are less rational than others, then you can ask them if that is the case whenever two people express different preferences.
I have asked them. But the most lucid answer I've gotten is that "people don't act according to your utopian Misesian hypotheses" or they just dismiss me altogether and discontinue the discussion, because I'm "clearly incapable of understanding REAL economics."
Call them out on their collectivist nonsense; dismissing someone's arguments on the basis of a preferential, arrogant claim of "you're not capable of understanding REAL economics" is not an argument. It is a sloppy (but effective, if people respect their authority) attempt at thought control, manipulation, & propaganda. The moment you let them stop the debate there, they have won social influence over you. Keep questioning why, & don't let them squirm into tangents. They will not be able to further explain, & will eventually be at a loss. Toss in a mention of folk economics, here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=320940. Show them that you do understand what "real" economics might be :PPair the above with the study on how the incompetent are incapable of knowing they are incompetent, the dunner krugger effect, & you might be able to turn some heads that people who are incompetent at grasping economics may not even know it. You can show that their automatic dismissal of your arguments is not logical, it's political. Knowledge of logical fallacies helps. Ultimately, imo their political dismissal is also emotional; people who think they are right cannot stand to not have that chemical stimulation in their brain whenever they feel they are right.At worst (or best), you can inspire some healthy doubt or cognitive dissonance to anyone remotely willing to hear you out, if not full on admit your stance. If that fails, or if you don't care about further perusing argumentation (easily understandable), I'd agree with LS on just moving on from it.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
They mean that people always make the correct decision---no errors in reasoning. Never make mistakes. IOW: they assume that rational economic actor = infallible.
Knight_of_BAAWA: They mean that people always make the correct decision---no errors in reasoning. Never make mistakes. IOW: they assume that rational economic actor = infallible.
Right... That's basically the idea I get when debating with them. But when I respond to their argument on the assumption that that is what they mean by "raitonality," they invariably retort that I'm misunderstanding/misrepresenting their position.
???
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap