MatthewWilliam: I've heard that anti-marginalist argument elsewhere. It goes something like: "marginal utility sought to explain prices, however prices were necessary in order to explain marginal utility. This is circular reasoning." Anyone know how to address this point?
I've heard that anti-marginalist argument elsewhere. It goes something like: "marginal utility sought to explain prices, however prices were necessary in order to explain marginal utility. This is circular reasoning."
Anyone know how to address this point?
Short answer:
Marginal utility can be explained without prices. It is applicable to a one person situation.
Marginal utility helps to explain prices.
Schools are labour camps.
I've heard that anti-marginalist argument elsewhere. It goes something like: "marginal utility sought to explain prices, however prices were necessary in order to explain marginal utility. This is circular reasoning." Anyone know how to address this point?
I do. It's nonsense. Where does marginalism purport to explain prices? If it does it is only after having explained how valuation of good takes place.
To darkness I condemn you...
Nick. B:At first I respectfully disagreed with you, LS, seeing that he was spreading so much logical fallacies.
Not much one can do about propaganda. Google is underwriting all of his production and promotional expenses. Tragedy of the Web 2.0 commons. There is no pricing mechanism that can drive him out of business for being disingenuous or blatantly fallacious. All of your efforts in that direction are wasted.
Nick. B:It seems that many of his viewers were on his side long before he was making videos and had no intentions of hearing opposing views.
Of course not. You will make more ground talking to non-libertarians, non-ideologues about liberty and freedom than you will people who have already formed opposite stances. It's much easier to approach someone who is non-political about avoiding politics, than someone who is invested in a party membership, and has spent a lot of time and energy voting.
We're going nowhere as long as we argue amongst ourselves and completely ignore all of the low hanging fruit ripe for a message of intellectual honesty.
Converting marxists seems to me like the hardest possible thing to do. Why not try to reach all of the people who are libertarian at heart but don't have philosophical or economic depth to their feelings?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student:Converting marxists seems to me like the hardest possible thing to do. Why not try to reach all of the people who are libertarian at heart but don't have philosophical or economic depth to their feelings?
i understand your low spirits, but all we have to do is refute the theories through logic/empirical evidence. marxism is a science and only good science can drive out bad science.
garegin:i understand your low spirits
I'm not low in spirit. I understand opportunity costs.
I also know that this guy's notoriety is directly tied to how much irritation he creates among competing ideologies, not by how compelling his arguments or ideas are.
liberty student: garegin:i understand your low spirits I'm not low in spirit. I understand opportunity costs. I also know that this guy's notoriety is directly tied to how much irritation he creates among competing ideologies, not by how compelling his arguments or ideas are.
Exactly! People are advertising him in the mises forum and creating "irritation" for all his socialist followers to eat. They're probably like, "Wow man, we are on the mises forum creating a stir amongst those hardcore free marketers." Socialism is all about popularity and they think they are making a name for themselves by being posted in this forum. Marx himself was proud he came up with a system that rejected human reason (that's his words). He thought he was being very materialistic by doing so. So how do you expect to reason with somebody that their whole premise is to reject reason. You're done just by opening your mouth to them. Unless you are saying their latest fad and dribbling their socialized slogans, your reason gets nowhere. As soon as they hear debate that old Marxist rejection of reason tunes you out.
But do what you will. If you have that kind of time.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
so we have to reject their theories on grounds of historical materialism!
wilderness:But do what you will. If you have that kind of time.
mises had time, rothbard had time, raico had time.
garegin:mises had time, rothbard had time, raico had time.
mr1001nights is not Karl Marx. lol
Those guys are all great thinkers, but they didn't have half the impact a Ron Paul has had. I really believe we need to talk to the folks who haven't thought about where they stand on liberty, rather than assigning credibility to the mr1001nights or Kevin Carson's of the world, who were it not for libertarian responses, would be wallowing in the dustbin because their ideology doesn't lend itself to market success in theory or implementation.
By all means, folks should do whatever they feel suits them. But let's not gloss over that this particular YouTube diva is famous for his detractors, not the power of his ideas.
LS is correct.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
marxism is a science
s/is/claims to be
i understand your point. is it far more effective to convert non-idealogical boobs than entrenched fanboys. but that is not how things always go. when scholars propose a new theory (heliocentric, germ, relativity, marginal utility) they dont brainwash the kids in the schoolyard but debate in the academic circles. victory is not getting as many converts as possible by picking on the easy ones but winning the war of ideas in the learned establishment.
garegin:victory is not getting as many converts as possible by picking on the easy ones but winning the war of ideas in the learned establishment.
That was how it used to be before the advent of the internet. The public intellectuals were the only people holding the microphone.
That's not the case anymore. The internet has given everyone the microphone. The entire case of LvMI and libertarianism taking off in the last year is directly related to the capacity to reach people and challenge the power structure, without having seats on the public opinion board of directors.
The notion of growing our own intellectuals or winning over public intellectuals is becoming anachronistic.
garegin: but winning the war of ideas in the learned establishment.
but winning the war of ideas in the learned establishment.
See, Hayek had the same idea, and Boettke and co. are attempting to carry it out now. Ultimately it's futile, the mainstream have all their human capital invested in the current paradigm, they've got a vested interest in ensuring that it isn't replaced, so you can be sure they're not going to be won over. If you look at the biography of any of the LvMI fellows, the only two I can think of that became Austrians after going through university are Hoppe and Herbener (keep in mind, Hoppe can to Austrianism through philosophy). The rest: Salerno, Block, Klein, Murphy, Kinsella and others were all well read in Austrian economics and libertarian philosophy before going into university.
That tells you which group we need to aim for.
I wanted to add, that I'm not against people pursuing higher education or seeking to become public intellectuals to promote AE or libertarian ideas.
But it's no longer necessary for that to be the main focus. Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Jim Rogers, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell have all managed to bring complex economic and philosophical ideas to the street level, where a Joe the Plumber (or me) can get it. They have done a fantastic job making the FED an interesting topic.
If AE is going to have a future, it will be in the experiences of people interacting every day, rather than only being something people in suits discuss on network TV.
Besides, a multi-pronged attack is very hard to thwart.
promoting liberty to the masses is important, very important. it also is very fruitful. however 1001nights is also street level. he doesnt sit in an ivory tower with tenures. the original topic we were discussing - him and his ilk- are the majority in the anarchist community. the reason socialist anarchists and marxists were and are able capture young minds is because they had won the power of ideas (the public intellectuals). there is a reason emma goldman and marx sold millions of books, while warren and tucker are confined to the nil-sized mutualist community.
we are not against statist-establishment intellectuals here (ie krugman) who have power behind them. we are talking about millions of socialists who are willing to raise serious hell in any western on american country.
I don't know what we are arguing about anymore, and I had a lot of trouble understanding the focus of your last post.
We're already winning the battle with young people. The internet bypasses the public intellectuals. Kids want an honest message, they want something positive to believe in, they want to know that there is a struggle which is worth fighting AND helps them make sense of the world.
Man, I sound like such a trotskyite.
In their times, all good and bad revolutions sound much like that.
liberty student: Those guys are all great thinkers, but they didn't have half the impact a Ron Paul has had. I really believe we need to talk to the folks who haven't thought about where they stand on liberty, rather than assigning credibility to the mr1001nights or Kevin Carson's of the world, who were it not for libertarian responses, would be wallowing in the dustbin because their ideology doesn't lend itself to market success in theory or implementation. By all means, folks should do whatever they feel suits them. But let's not gloss over that this particular YouTube diva is famous for his detractors, not the power of his ideas.
Your comparison of a vulgar socialist like mr1001bolsheviks to an individualist anarchist like Kevin Carson is ridiculous. They're hardly comparable. Mr1001bolsheviks doesn't even accept mutualism, and he would be likely to lump carson in with anarcho-capitalists. Trust me, I've known him and interacted with him on and off in debates for a number of years on youtube before he was posted on this forum. I was one of the first mr1001bolsheviks detractors.
Brainpolice:Your comparison of a vulgar socialist like mr1001bolsheviks to an individualist anarchist like Kevin Carson is ridiculous. They're hardly comparable. Mr1001bolsheviks doesn't even accept mutualism, and he would be likely to lump carson in with anarcho-capitalists.
I never compared their ideology.
Brainpolice:I was one of the first mr1001bolsheviks detractors.
I've always considered you a bolshevik expert.
Hey BP, what is your take on Night's friend Buddhagem? To me he is kind of a enigma. At times he seems reasonable, and at other times almost as bad as Nights. What's your opinion of him?
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