Hoppe's response to Block’s foregoing criticism of his previously published notes on the subject of preference and indifference in economic analysis, including a summary of agreements and reconstruction of differences.
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:
The times are past in which one could naively teach the cost theory without getting involved in more precise explanations concerning in particular the origin of the value of the cost goods
Mises created an artificial construct, the evenly rotating economy (ERE), from which to ascertain the source of entrepreneurial profit and loss. In particular, the ERE is characterized by two distinct elements.
The law of association as espoused by David Ricardo and generalized by Ludwig von Mises cannot directly convey what is at stake in exchanges involving specialization in uncertainty bearing.
Nonetheless, Rothbard and Mises have been criticized by Nozick (1977) and Caplan (1999), for inconsistency in admitting the concept of indifference into economic analysis after all, even if only indirectly.
To analyze the feasibility of applying the Coase Theorem, this article uses two traditional arguments, economic calculation and non-neutral effects, found in the Austrian literature.
Supporters of Kaldor-Hicks believe it useful to have a quantitative measure to assess the efficiency of different situations. Although it may appear convenient to be able to judge policies
In this paper I clarify the long-running debate between Block and Demsetz over the potential impact of psychic income on the Coase Theorem. Each of the protagonists appear to have erred on how to integrate
Transitivity in economics maintains that if a is preferred to b, and b to c, then a must also be preferred to c.
