Economics Questions

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

fakename — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:43:04 GMT

I don't understand your confusion. For a person who aims to murder somebody, completing the murder is success.

Good point.

Actually, wouldn't it be true that a desire for failure (whether in the forms of death or simple lack of attainment) would be actually contradictory, in that the attempt to fail should not be successful by the actor's own admission (talk about a 180 from my previous conception)?

This actually brings up other questions like, "if the above is true, then is success really simply the opposite of failure?". For if it is the opposite of failure then it follows that to succeed is to fail at failing which makes success a mere species of failure instead of something distinct.

But if that's too philosophical, I still don't think that praexology alone can tell us about economic success or failure because the definitions for failure and success are simply too broad and so they, as you mention, apply equally to murder as to buying/selling. So all we can say is that success for one person can be a failure for another etc.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

z1235 — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:19:11 GMT

I don't understand your confusion. For a person who aims to murder somebody, completing the murder is success.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

fakename — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 03:44:36 GMT

Because the state is often justified through interpersonal utility comparisons, often in the guise of neoclassical economics.

Then another clarification is in store for me. How do we define "success" praexologically? Success I believe means to attain one's ends. But if one's ends are to fail or for instance, if one's end is "to destroy the market" then perhaps my definition of success is incorrect. This is because in both cases, the end is attained even better the more violence that is applied towards the end, since violence destroys the market and any chance of being successful at anything.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:39:04 GMT

If that is the case though, then why is the praexological treatment of economics always used as a normative argument against the state?

Because the state is often justified through interpersonal utility comparisons, often in the guise of neoclassical economics.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

gotlucky — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:08:48 GMT

Dude, I'm just trying to answer the OP's question. I'm not condemning praxeology or anything.

It was a response to what I quoted, but I said it after reading your whole post, which included this:

How can praxeology distinguish this from coercion without sneaking in some sort of normative view of right?

The point is that it's not the focus of praxeology. My response would have made more sense if it had been included with my response to the second part of your post.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

Fool on the Hill — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:53:06 GMT

So what? That's just not the focus of praxeology, just as biology isn't about explaining force and energy.

Dude, I'm just trying to answer the OP's question. I'm not condemning praxeology or anything.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

fakename — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:52:38 GMT

I think you are mixing up actions and trades. The simple definition of action is the consciencious use of means to achieve ends. Praxeology places no restrictions or valuations on what those ends are except that the person attempting to achieve them understands that he is attempting to do so. It does not value the means either. So there is no way to describe action as being efficient or inefficient as that would be to place valuations on the action.

So you are saying that the praexologist is evaluating trades from the standards and norms of logic but not from ethics?

If that is the case though, then why is the praexological treatment of economics always used as a normative argument against the state?

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

fakename — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:50:18 GMT

But can praxeology really consider one party's preference for what the other does in an interaction? What if I prefer to pay $5 for something but the merchant will only sell it to me for $10 (at which I buy it)? How can praxeology distinguish this from coercion without sneaking in some sort of normative view of right? Or what if I prefer not to go into work tomorrow but I'm afraid that my employer will fire me if I don't? Does praxeology file that under the coercion category?

I think that praexology could tangentially consider moral subjects. For instance, in so much as envy is an act of the mind, praexology can tell you things about it but perhaps not "of" it. Likewise you could say that not getting a thing for $5, although not your highest preference, is nonetheless your lowest preference given your circumstance. Indeed given the circumstance, it is hard to understand if one even considers eggs at $5 or $0 a possible product. And as we know from the problem of the bushels of eggs, if one changes the definition of a product, then one's valuation naturally changes too.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

fakename — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:44:28 GMT

What do you mean by efficiency?

I would say that efficiency is the ability to get a maximum possible amount of output by some minimum possible amount of input.

In economics I would say that if one can make lots of profit with only a few costs, then this business is efficient.

In society, I suppose that it would be the least possible amount of money costs incured by one person in order for some other person to get the maximum possible benefit.

In psychological terms, I suppose that it would be the least possible mental effort expended to learn or operate, for the greatest degree of mental activity or knowledge.

Those are my definitions

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:33:31 GMT

What if I prefer to pay $5 for something but the merchant will only sell it to me for $10 (at which I buy it)?

I am sure you'd prefer to pay $0 for it.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

vive la insurrection — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:20:12 GMT

Well the economic sphere is anti-psyhologism (i.e. afraid of employer). And it is also not concerned with legal custom, ethics or whatever (coercion, rights, etc)...neither is physics for that matter.

That stated there is thymology. I think, and Mises seems to agree that a Freudian interpretation of such things would be in line with a more "Austrian outlook" on things.

As far as reducing things to "just one category", if that's the case, than all that may just be a law of intelligibility may be forced to do such a thing - but that's neither here or there.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

gotlucky — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:14:06 GMT

Yes, that's what I mean. It groups all of the reasons for why we do things into one, all-embracing category. It's unconcerned with the difference of reasons.

So what? That's just not the focus of praxeology, just as biology isn't about explaining force and energy.

But can praxeology really consider one party's preference for what the other does in an interaction? What if I prefer to pay $5 for something but the merchant will only sell it to me for $10 (at which I buy it)? How can praxeology distinguish this from coercion without sneaking in some sort of normative view of right? Or what if I prefer not to go into work tomorrow but I'm afraid that my employer will fire me if I don't? Does praxeology file that under the coercion category?

Praxeology is about human action. Economics, or catallactics, is a subset of praxeology which focuses on voluntary exchanges. Your employer firing you is not a coercive exchange. Praxeology does not distinguish firing you from mugging you. People distinguish those activities when they choose to study economics.

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

Fool on the Hill — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:30:35 GMT

Praxeology does focus upon why people do what they do and the implications of this fact, even though it looks at they why in a very cursory, but essential manner. Praxeology tells us that people do what they do because they value the outcome which they believe their actions are working towards. This is what praxeology tells us, and from here it advances. What it does not tell us is why individuals ultimately value what they value, nor believe what they believe, the two things which determine what an individual will do.

Yes, that's what I mean. It groups all of the reasons for why we do things into one, all-embracing category. It's unconcerned with the difference of reasons.

I think that you need to make this clear, since praxeology emerges from telling us why people do what they do, and classically one of its most central theorems is that exchange, when uncoerced, must benefit both parties within the transaction. While a coerced exchange will benefit both parties, if it was truly coercion then one party would have preffered no coercion and no exchange.

But can praxeology really consider one party's preference for what the other does in an interaction? What if I prefer to pay $5 for something but the merchant will only sell it to me for $10 (at which I buy it)? How can praxeology distinguish this from coercion without sneaking in some sort of normative view of right? Or what if I prefer not to go into work tomorrow but I'm afraid that my employer will fire me if I don't? Does praxeology file that under the coercion category?

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

Neodoxy — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 01:11:17 GMT

I think that you are incorrect. Praxeology does focus upon why people do what they do and the implications of this fact, even though it looks at they why in a very cursory, but essential manner. Praxeology tells us that people do what they do because they value the outcome which they believe their actions are working towards. This is what praxeology tells us, and from here it advances. What it does not tell us is why individuals ultimately value what they value, nor believe what they believe, the two things which determine what an individual will do.

I believe that what you are really saying is simply that from a praxeological standpoint it's impossible for an individual to perform an involuntary action, since even if you are being threatened then you still have to decide to do something, even if the only reason is because you are being threatened. I think that you need to make this clear, since praxeology emerges from telling us why people do what they do, and classically one of its most central theorems is that exchange, when uncoerced, must benefit both parties within the transaction. While a coerced exchange will benefit both parties, if it was truly coercion then one party would have preffered no coercion and no exchange.

EDIT

Also, from this perspective praxeology is all about what people do, voluntarily, but this does not exclude coercion since coercion cannot force an involuntary action. You do indeed need to be careful with the word voluntary

Re: Does praexology really tell us anything about economic efficiency and well-being?

Fool on the Hill — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:38:38 GMT

You have to be careful not to equivocate on the word "voluntary." Praxeology is unconcerned with why people make the choices they do. From the perspective of praxeology, which concerns itself only with what people do and not what is done to them, whether an action was coerced or not doesn't matter.