Subjectivism

In recent months, the cry of ‘black power!’ has been heard resounding in the land.

Though little known among the economics establishment during his lifetime, Ludwig M. Lachmann was always widely connected. The range of scholars whom he knew and with whom he communicated was truly impressive.

How rational are humans? Many important implications hinge on this seemingly innocuous question hinge, for not only economists, but all social scientists. 

We examine the strict preference approach to the interpretation of human action and the assertion that a choice cannot be made between actions in which the actor is indifferent to the outcomes.

This short note is a contribution to the solution of the problem of indifference in Austrian economics (“Nozick’s problem”). The problem is divided into two questions:

Ingo Pellengahr’s doctoral dissertation, The Austrian Subjectivist Theory of Interest, focuses on one small aspect of these ongoing debates.

In response to Block and Barnett (2012), this paper clarifies some misunderstandings about the concept of transitivity and shows its relation to rationality, asynchronicity of choice

Boettke, Leeson and Subrick (Boettke and Leeson 2004; Leeson and Subrick 2006) describe institutional robustness as the ability of a given system of social organization to stand up to the test

Transitivity in economics maintains that if a is preferred to b, and b to c, then a must also be preferred to c. 

Neoclassical utility functions are an invalid means of analyzing consumer behavior for three reasons: first, and most important, because such functions, and their attendant rankings, are cardinal, not ordinal in nature;