Economics Questions

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

cognitivist — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:43:23 GMT

economist + economist = argument,

clergyman + atheist = argument,

Get the picture?

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

Azure — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:16:20 GMT

And as an empirical question -how is it that after 120 years or so, the Austrians and Neoclassicals don't cooperate? I agree that supposing the acting person is simply mistaken about means, then he may not be drawn to other methods, still there is a psychic arbitrage opportunity to recognizing that others are right after your methods fail. Surely the motive to cooperate couldn't've been stunted for 120yrs?

This is a thymological question and thus has no relation to pure economic theory, so it is not a refutation of catallitics.

But to answer you the best I can, Science is not a continuous march of progress. Mistakes can and do occur which can throw an entire field down the wrong track for decades, and this is not exclusive to economics. A quite infamous example is how the cure for scurvy was discovered, then "proven" to not work and had to be rediscovered a century later.

Moreover, people who introduce new theories that run contrary to established thought are met with skepticism. This skepticism is healthy but it also creates an academic inertia: Many would rather stay in a comfortable zone than go down a new path, be proven wrong, and lose their positions.

There is the further problem exclusive to the social sciences in that the state is not interested in the truth of these matters but are only interested in justifications for what they already want to do. If the neoclassicals gave up on their idea of market failure it is likely they would lose their state funding.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

fakename — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:02:08 GMT

I would first like to say thank you to all the replies as I must surely by now seem thick-skulled.

That being said, how is it that neoclassicals and austrians differ in purpose?

And as an empirical question -how is it that after 120 years or so, the Austrians and Neoclassicals don't cooperate? I agree that supposing the acting person is simply mistaken about means, then he may not be drawn to other methods, still there is a psychic arbitrage opportunity to recognizing that others are right after your methods fail. Surely the motive to cooperate couldn't've been stunted for 120yrs?

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

Azure — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:23:29 GMT

It is very possible for men to choose the wrong means to attain their goals. In fact, it happens very often, and as a result human history is largely a chronicle of error and frustration.

But this is no contradiction of catallitics.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

Jackson — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:04:37 GMT

me response to #1 and #2:

what?!

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

fakename — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:57:33 GMT

Alright, maybe people do have different opinions on how to reach the same goal but to me economics is about emphasizing the outcome of free markets. To say that people have different opinions on how to reach something is like saying that people have don't have enough food or shelter -the free market outcome is that people begin to have more food or shelter than they had before; likewise the market outcome is that people begin to share the same opinion if that opinion is maximizes their utility (taken in the austrian sense).

So there at least exists a tendency towards unifying their opinions.

Is it true that Austrians and neoclassicals don't have the same purpose?

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

fakename — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:51:11 GMT

Correct me if I'm not getting your point, but I think you mean to concur with me in agreeing that in order for the plain state of rest to be established, narrow parameters are needed and so similiarly in order for there to be any truth or at least consistency in the idea of "having-a-common-purpose-and-acting-commonly", there must also be narrower parameters?

Either that or, since I could be wrong, it may be that your disagreeing with me on the possibility of the plain state of rest. I think to disagree with that concept would be to take the action axiom too boldly since the axiom itself doesn't preclude the possibility of a temporary state of rest (i.e. the plain state) which vanishes once new needs arise.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

hugolp — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:34:54 GMT

Given that everyone who has the same purpose does the same stuff

Then why is it that some people (Austrians) who have the same purpose as others (neoclassicals) don't do the same things (practice econ. the same)?

Because not everybody who has the same purpose does the same stuff. People can have different opinions on how to reach the same goal.

And Austrians and neoclassicals dont have the same purpose.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

Azure — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:08:19 GMT

Like I said. Production patterns always change after consumer preferences do. The "plain state of rest" is only possible if consumer preferences stop changing.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

fakename — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:08:13 GMT

dang, should've consulted a glossary I meant by plain state of rest, the condition where everyone goes to exchange and then stops exchanging since they are satisfied as opposed to a final state of rest where the whole economy is without possibility of change because it has reached a perfectly satisfactory position.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

Azure — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:31:16 GMT

You sound a bit confused. Allow me to guess at what your terms mean:

By the "plain state of rest" you mean either:

A. Where all of everyone's wants are satisfied. A system like this no longer obeys the laws of praxeology, as something which does not want cannot purposefully act.

B. The conditions of the evenly rotating economy. This can never be achieved because changes in consumption patterns always outpace changes in production patterns.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

fakename — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:21:57 GMT

Well Azure, that defeats question #2 but I am still waiting for some help on number 1. I suppose that it was a bad analogy on my part but I still think there is something to it that may need to be discussed more.

For instance it might be a problem where the theory of economics is ahead of the facts of history. So for instance, just because a particular market hasn't reached the plain state of rest, doesn't mean that it won't reach the plain state of rest. But using this as an analogue of question 1, isn't there something plainly wrong with saying that markets reach the plain state of rest and also holding that for this particular market, it has not reached the plain state of rest? I suppose one would have to say that after a certain time, or when certain preferences occur, a plain state of rest would occur; and similarly in question 1 I suppose one would have to say that after a certain time or after a certain willing then and only then would everyone cooperate.

Any help would be appreciated.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

Azure — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:49:00 GMT

Technically this applies to every association though the term "market" is usually only used to apply to trade. A voluntary association has to be profitable (in the sense of utility) for every party involved, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Thus, voluntary associations build more wealth by definition.

Some associations are more profitable than others, and external forces to the market can reduce wealth. How and why the former is not done and the latter happens is a matter of economic history, not of economics itself.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

fakename — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:13:39 GMT

So you interpreted the first one right so I suppose I was using an incorrect analogy?

As for the second one -something is called accidental when it doesn't completely follow from what something is. So I was wondering, if the market is just voluntary association, then it can be any type of voluntary association even tribal so wealth creation is just accidental to the market. But here I think I just reached a contradiction which defeats this argument since if the market can be anything then it can be this particular thing and since a wealthy society is just this type of instance, then it cannot be considered as having nothing to do with what the market is.

Re: an (attempted) critique of free-markets

fakename — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:07:04 GMT

Yeah I'm the same guy who wanted to know about logic -what don't tell me I messed up again!?

Well, in all seriousness your probably right about the non sequitor but I think it's mainly my bad communication. Here's a better way of putting #1

Given that everyone who has the same purpose does the same stuff

Then why is it that some people (Austrians) who have the same purpose as others (neoclassicals) don't do the same things (practice econ. the same)?