Does anyone know of any work (either by an Austrian or non Austrian) that attempts to derive the value of money in terms of amount of some produce or an amount of hours worked. Perhaps something along the lines of, if there are X dollars in total in the society and (other things defined...) then on average each dollar will buy Y hours labour.
As an illustration, here is my own formulation: Imagine a very simple society in which there is only one commodity: sandwiches. Everyone in the land grows the ingredients for their sandwiches in their gardens. Often they will exchange sandwiches with their neighbours just for variety. There is no money in this society only barter. But then one day the king of the land says "I've just invented something I'm going to call money. It consists of metal coins called shekels. I will give everyone in the land 1000 shekels and from now on bartering is banned. All exchanges must be via the medium of exchanging shekels. What's more, nobody is allowed to eat their own sandwiches." The question now is: how many shekels will a sandwich cost? It may well be that on day one, people will not have a clue and all sorts of silly prices may get paid... but presumably over time the price will gravitate towards a certain value. What will that value be?
nirgrahamUK:It deals with something invisible and intangible that cannot be perceived by the methods of the natural sciences.
When was that written? The 16th century?? You tell me off for having not read enough literature - but it seems that people here are living in medieval times when it comes to brain science. How about you do some reading!
im sorry, at this time no scientist is capable of giving you a printout plot of 'how much you loved your mother' over the last week and supply true evidence, that the reason you did various acts during that time was because you loved at some particular amount.
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
nigrahamUK: im sorry, at this time no scientist is capable of giving you a printout plot of 'how much you loved your mother' over the last week and supply true evidence, that the reason you did various acts during that time was because you loved at some particular amount.
DD5: nigrahamUK: im sorry, at this time no scientist is capable of giving you a printout plot of 'how much you loved your mother' over the last week and supply true evidence, that the reason you did various acts during that time was because you loved at some particular amount. Even if science was capable of giving such a "printout", so what? The magnitudes would still be subjective, in that they would be unique per individual. There is no objective magnitude for loving your mother in the universe. The only usefulness of such magnitudes extracted out of the brain would be to compare them to other magnitudes in the same brains, such as loving your father. I don’t see how this has any serious implications on economic science. The values are themselves still subjective, and discovering the magnitudes inside the brain does not refute in any way the regression theorem.
I tried telling him pretty much exactly that already. I think I'm going to be done reading this thread any more.
Person A: I have read book X
Person B: Wow, that's an old book! You have to read more! lol!
Person has read book X, therefore person has read less relevant material than person Y. <- there's a gap in the logic there.
You claim to have a PhD in neural nets, but fail to understand simple logical implication... I'm suspicious.
Anyways, the understanding of works like HA require an understanding of some philosophy, logic, some history, some political theory, and basic economics. Without knowledge in those areas, a reader would really miss out on parts. If we want to talk about building theories on top of/or making use of AE, we should probably have a very thorough knowledge of its fundamental works. You disregard that as "too much reading" but claim to be an acredited academic. Again, I'm suspicious.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
mickanomics: Hmmm, good question.... probably amps, because its an electrical phenomena in the brain. It may correspond to the total positive electrical signal received by the set of neurons responsible for instigating the action that will satisfy your desires.
Hmmm, good question.... probably amps, because its an electrical phenomena in the brain. It may correspond to the total positive electrical signal received by the set of neurons responsible for instigating the action that will satisfy your desires.
Ah, but why not Joules? That would be a measure of the amount of energy these neurons have received. Or how about watts, the amount of energy required per second of wanting something? How about hertz, for how often the respective neurons discharge? Perhaps we can measure the physical distance of these neurons in meters; surely these neurons must be different lengths in different people, right?. Or perhaps we can mass them; that'd be more accurate. Density might be in order. And then the question comes down to, How do we go about deciding which of the bazillions of neurons should be held accountable? And what if two people have different preferences but the neurons fire the same way? What then?
Please inform me of the exact measurement of my preference for ballot boxes from the U.S. presidential election of 1844, which the correct units, down to the 100th decimal place. Please also give me the appropriate units that your intense scientific study of this most important issue has declared reasonable. It is a question I have longed to answer; what love do I have for ballot boxes from 1844?
When you are through with that, please carefully construct an equation that will accurately depict my preferences for the aforementioned boxes, money, alcohol, women, and laptops. The equation must have less than 1 in 1000 inaccuracy, and it must maintain this level until may date of death.
mickanomics: Lilburne:with a GIVEN value scale Could you explain that in a little more detail. By the way you can find the context of the quotes with a search - a searchable copy of the book is online here.
Lilburne:with a GIVEN value scale
Could you explain that in a little more detail.
By the way you can find the context of the quotes with a search - a searchable copy of the book is online here.
Here's the example in more context.
Suppose a clothing manufacturer learns of a machine that will make men's and women's overcoats for half as much labor as previously. He installs the machines and drops half his labor force. This looks at first glance like a clear loss of employment. But the machine itself required labor to make it; so here, as one offset, are jobs that would not otherwise have existed. The manufacturer, however, would have adopted the machine only if it had either made better suits for half as much labor, or had made the same kind of suits at a smaller cost. If we assume the latter, we cannot assume that the amount of labor to make the machines was as great in terms of payrolls as the amount of labor that the clothing manufacturer hopes to save in the long run by adopting the machine; otherwise there would have been no economy, and he would not have adopted it.
The writing here is a little convoluted, but he seems to be saying that the manufacturer would only adopt the machine if he expected it to benefit him somehow. This is necessarily true, assuming the manufacturer is an actor, because expectation of benefit is ineluctably tied up in the very concept of action. An action is a DOING with a purpose, a telos. And the very concept of benefit is itself teleological; if something is beneficial, it is, by definition, in agreement with a purpose of the benefactor. The question is, "how does the machine benefit the man regarding his business?" What Hazlitt is saying is that there are only two conceivable ways: it either increases product output or it decreases cost input. How else could it conceivably benefit his business?
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
mickanomics:For a parable to be of any merit, it has to feature people who are behaving rationally. Therefore HH is making a statement about how people behave in general.
That is a non-sequitur.
Everyone acts rationally. They act with purpose towards an end. Even restraint of overt action aka inaction, is done purposefully. Whether that purpose serves their end is something they (generally speaking) can only speculate about since none of us have perfect knowledge. This is a statement about epistemology, or the study of the limitations of knowledge.
What HH is saying, is that if the people in the parable did not have an end, then they would not have taken that action. And praxeology informs us that man acts in order to remove discomfort, that is, to overcome obstacles to his happiness or well being, so they act in their own best interest (as perceived by them).
HH can only make a statement about the action based on his understanding of action. He can't say that people will always take that action given that specific choice, because each person experiences discomfort in different ways, and so speculates differently on how to improve his lot.
The one benefit from this conversation with you is exposing how poorly praxeology has been explained to laymen by those great authors we hold up as heroes. The best work I have seen for bringing it to the masses to date is lilburne's comics (bless his soul). You should check them out.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
At the start of this thread I got some very valuable information for which I am grateful but there is only so much abuse (combined with much idiocy) that I can take. Arguing with 10 people at the same time is pretty stressful and I'm not sure I am getting anything out of the process any more. So I shall abandon this thread for now.
Yes. Ordinal is concerned with the ranking of things. Cardinal is concerned with the value (in the numerical rather than economic sense) of things.
So how much more do I value bananas than apples, then? Cardinally speaking? 3x as much in terms of what... amps? Where do you get this crap from?
To darkness I condemn you...
You want to know why you're called an idiot? This is why. Abandon the thread. Do some actual reading, get rid of your arrogant scientistic-engineer mentality and do some growing up, rather than assuming you know everything, that economists are idiots, that humans are machines you've perfectly figured out (bullshit) and that you can measure preferences in terms of 'amps' (wow, illuminating...)
And what if two people have different preferences but the neurons fire the same way?
Interestingly, given his academic pedigree, he should've been aware of this common criticism of functionalist theories of the mind.
Jon Irenicus: And what if two people have different preferences but the neurons fire the same way? Interestingly, given his academic pedigree, he should've been aware of this common criticism of functionalist theories of the mind.
to further elaborate on this theme, with a fun fact.
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/mysterious-brain.html
If Sharon has a hole where most people have brain, has she noticed anything else she has difficulty with? She tells us: "Sequences of numbers, telephone numbers, I find hard to remember". The IQ test results that Sharon, far from being an idiot, has an IQ of 113 making her above average. 80% of the population would have a lower score.
Lilburne: Here's the example in more context. Suppose a clothing manufacturer learns of a machine that will make men's and women's overcoats for half as much labor as previously. He installs the machines and drops half his labor force. This looks at first glance like a clear loss of employment. But the machine itself required labor to make it; so here, as one offset, are jobs that would not otherwise have existed. The manufacturer, however, would have adopted the machine only if it had either made better suits for half as much labor, or had made the same kind of suits at a smaller cost. If we assume the latter, we cannot assume that the amount of labor to make the machines was as great in terms of payrolls as the amount of labor that the clothing manufacturer hopes to save in the long run by adopting the machine; otherwise there would have been no economy, and he would not have adopted it. The writing here is a little convoluted, but he seems to be saying that the manufacturer would only adopt the machine if he expected it to benefit him somehow. This is necessarily true, assuming the manufacturer is an actor, because expectation of benefit is ineluctably tied up in the very concept of action. An action is a DOING with a purpose, a telos. And the very concept of benefit is itself teleological; if something is beneficial, it is, by definition, in agreement with a purpose of the benefactor. The question is, "how does the machine benefit the man regarding his business?" What Hazlitt is saying is that there are only two conceivable ways: it either increases product output or it decreases cost input. How else could it conceivably benefit his business?
Mickanomics,
Did the above elucidate the praxeological approach at all for you?
I don't understand this guy. He comes to a forum where he knows people will argue with what he says and puts his beliefs out there. But he fights to the last drop to defend them every time.
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