Which is why I so frequently claim that Marxism should no longer be considered a legitimate branch of economic theory. Glad we could agree.The Finn wrote:OK, fair enough. Some economists would distinguish between (subjective) value and price; others see price as the only meaningful indicator of value. But my point is that the way Marx and his contemporaries thought about it has largely been left behind.
The astute observer will note that you don't even attempt to refute me here.Funk N. Furter wrote:Why of course! Silly me. Of course now you mention it I realise a worker is free, free as a bird. And this bird you'll never change.
As a worker I am free to not work, or to start my own business. Why, who knows, with a little bit of luck I could be just like Sir Lord Alan Sugar in the twinkling of an eye.
Of course the fact that I have nothing and the capitalists own the means of production is neither here nor there. Every single person in the world could be a billionaire capitalist tomorrow if they just put their minds to it.
Remind me again, who we would employ?
Yes it does! I still don't see, why he thinks this invalidates my argument somehow while leaving his argument intact...The Finn wrote:Galt said his economic statements were not empirically derived, but flowed from a priori propositions.TomViolenz wrote:You are losing me here, could you explain what you mean, and how it ties in with the discussion I had with Galt?The Finn wrote:Capitalism, part of the structure of reason itself?
That would take some nifty arguing...
When you called this silly, he pointed out that some pretty important works of philosophy essentially pivot on the same notion - that there are some truths that are neither derived from experience, nor simply analytically true , but which are needed for us to be able to make sense of experience at all. He even did some name dropping, referencing Immanuel Kant.
A good point. But I would argue that there is a difference between the kinds of a priori truths that Immanuel K proposed (little notions like space, time and causation) and the underlying assumptions of neoclassical economics. And Kant had to do quite a lot of hard work even then.
Hence the reference to nifty arguing.
Hope that makes things clearer?
....so in other words: You can't refute his claims!Galt wrote:Funk N. Furter wrote:This is patently untrue. Capitalism has only been an economic system for 350 years in England, and less in other countries. Human split from the chimp line 7 million years ago, and anatomically modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago. There was no class society until 10,000 years ago. From 200,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago humans had no class structure, no classes. In other words society was largely egalitarian. Towns with no classes thrived in Europe for hundreds and even thousands of years around 10,000 years ago.
At the other end of the spectrum, we now live in an age where there is enough food, but millions are hungry. This would never happen in a hunter-gatherer tribe. Food is always shared out. We live in a technological age where everyone could have a decent house, heat and light, clean running water, healthcare, care in their old age, proper clothing, transport, communication and generally everything they need and most things they could want. All this is not only possible, it is mostly already in existence, like food.
But while millions starve, twice as many overeat, food is thrown away, $ billions are spent on arms, individuals own $ 1 billion yachts, millions are unemployed. Greed and waste is everywhere.
The human race could improve the lives of billions of people significantly, very easily, and for millions that would be a matter of survival as opposed to a lingering death.
Even if we just spent the money we use on arms manufacture we would have enough to solve most basic problems like providing clean drinking water and sanitation that billions lack.
It would cost about $13 billion a year to provide clean water, sanitation and food to those lacking it. Incredibly, this is only 1% of what is spent on weapons.
What stops us from doing the right thing? The answer is capitalism, a system in which the only thing that matters is is profit.
Please break it down to the stupid people like me:Galt wrote:From Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method:The Finn wrote:You will have to do better than that if you want to convince me that you are in possession of self evident truths... For instance, much available evidence about early human society pretty much contradicts this.
"Economic propositions flow directly from our reflectively gained knowledge of action; and the status of these propositions as a priori true statements about something real is derived from our understanding of what Mises terms “the axiom of action. This axiom, the proposition that humans act, fulfills the requirements precisely for a true synthetic a priori proposition. It cannot be denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action—and so the truth of the statement literally cannot be undone. And the axiom is also not derived from observation—there are only bodily movements to be observed but no such things as “This axiom, the proposition that humans act, fulfills the requirements precisely for a true synthetic a priori proposition. It cannot be denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action—and so the truth of the statement literally cannot be undone. And the axiom is also not derived from observation—there are only bodily movements to be observed but no such things as actions—but stems instead from reflective understanding”
Sure, or just not produce the BMW at all...Galt wrote:A BMW costs more than a Fiat because on average people are willing to pay more for it. This is the only reason. If people weren't willing to pay more for it, they'd have to drop their prices.
But your model treats human labour like a good or resource, without acknowledging the limitations of your model. The human "capital" can not sell it's services below cost, yet still has to eat(even if their costs are to high); they also can't move as freely as any other kind of capital (hint: that's part of the reason why wages are so low in certain places) .Galt wrote: His entire account for worker exploitation does not hold up to scrutiny the moment you realise that workers, in exchange for services rendered, receive the exact amount of value to which they contractually consented. Hence, there is no expropriation of labour in the form of surplus value. Rather, surplus value is what motivates the capitalist to employ the worker in the first place. Simply put, profit is what drives production.
TomViolenz wrote: Please break it down to the stupid people like me:
What is you point?
Why do you think so?
What logical arguments can you name to support your claim? Etc.
Your copy-pasta is not more insightful than when other posters do it!
Galt can tell us whether the cap fits...Some vulgar or “pop” Austrians make truly absurd claims on the basis of this axiom, such as that all inferences of Austrian economics must be true because they follow from the human action axiom. Not even Mises believed such rubbish:
“Every theorem of praxeology is deduced by logical reasoning from the category of action. It partakes of the apodictic certainty provided by logical reasoning that starts from an a priori category. Into the chain of praxeological reasoning the praxeologist introduces certain assumptions concerning the conditions of the environment in which an action takes place. Then he tries to find out how these special conditions affect the result to which his reasoning must lead. The question whether or not the real conditions of the external world correspond to these assumptions is to be answered by experience. But if the answer is in the affirmative, all the conclusions drawn by logically correct praxeological reasoning strictly describe what is going on in reality” (Mises 1978: 44).
In other words, praxeology relies on deduction and requires premises that are sometimes synthetic propositions, not ones true a priori.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogs ... axiom.html
You treat human labour like a good, that the worker can either sell or not. But labour can not be put aside, to sell at a later date, because the price is not fair! Labour can not be easily here today and there tomorrow. If you only have labour to sell, that gets a shit price, you can certainly call that consensual. But it's about as consensual as the sex that the hooker gets on a daily basisGalt wrote:
1. The employer pays the employee wages in order to make profit.
2. The employee sells his labour to the employer in order to receive wages.
3. Provided that this relationship is consensual, no expropriation ever takes place.There are very many levels of consensual
4. Both parties gain from the exchange, value is created.
Ah, but you see, Tom, you live in the middle ground, the world of complicated facts, where sweeping generalizations are confounded by complex realities. Galt and Funken's statements about economic systems refer to abstract, imaginary realities that don't (yet, according to them) exist... As I said, this is why they seem (to me, anyway) so much alike. It looks as if they find it more satisfying lobbing grenades at the flaws in the other guy's absolutist system than dealing with the complications of mere reality...TomViolenz wrote: I for one, am absolutely happy to have a free market decide for the goods that can easily turn a profit (Say: Cars, Midi-Controlers etc) and have a socialist way of managing the goods and services that don't (schools, roads, health care....).
None of these systems are the "truth", neither Capitalism, Socialism or any other -ism, they are just descriptions of observed contingency.The Finn wrote:TomViolenz wrote: Please break it down to the stupid people like me:
What is you point?
Why do you think so?
What logical arguments can you name to support your claim? Etc.
Your copy-pasta is not more insightful than when other posters do it!
I must say I concur.
I think I sort of get part of what Hoppe is saying: it seems to be an argument against 'behaviourist' thinking.
Behaviourists argue that it makes not sense to try to understand what people do with reference to their intentions. You should just look at their observed behaviour.
A whole bunch of people have argued that this is silly: that human behaviour is purposeful behaviour, and that if we want to understand what happens in society, we need to refer to these purposes. Wittgenstein is my fave here, but this guy Mises referred to by Hoppe seems to be another - [google, google, google] Mises and some guy called Roth seems to have linked this to an Austrian theory of economics called 'praxeology'.
In Mises's case, he seems to think that if you rationally reflect on the concept of action, you will logically arrive at the conclusion that capitalism is the only possible rational arrangement for human society.
Personally, I find that a distinctly odd notion. Human reason being the odd and limited thing that it is, you can use a priori reasoning to justify basically anything - the existence of God, the non-existence of God, the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, socialism, capitalism, what you will.
Me, I am an empiricist. I like facts. They are complicated. They never do what you want them to. They are always where you least expect them, and they often say the opposite of what you want them to say. That's the problem with reality. It's so real.
Wait....
Hang on...
<Google, google, google>
Ah!
There's more!
Galt can tell us whether the cap fits...Some vulgar or “pop” Austrians make truly absurd claims on the basis of this axiom, such as that all inferences of Austrian economics must be true because they follow from the human action axiom. Not even Mises believed such rubbish:
“Every theorem of praxeology is deduced by logical reasoning from the category of action. It partakes of the apodictic certainty provided by logical reasoning that starts from an a priori category. Into the chain of praxeological reasoning the praxeologist introduces certain assumptions concerning the conditions of the environment in which an action takes place. Then he tries to find out how these special conditions affect the result to which his reasoning must lead. The question whether or not the real conditions of the external world correspond to these assumptions is to be answered by experience. But if the answer is in the affirmative, all the conclusions drawn by logically correct praxeological reasoning strictly describe what is going on in reality” (Mises 1978: 44).
In other words, praxeology relies on deduction and requires premises that are sometimes synthetic propositions, not ones true a priori.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogs ... axiom.html
A good question & I will try to answer.Galt wrote: I'm game. Could you possibly tell me which of his ideas do you think are valid?
Possibly. I'd like to get that admission from them though...The Finn wrote:Ah, but you see, Tom, you live in the middle ground, the world of complicated facts, where sweeping generalizations are confounded by complex realities. Galt and Funken's statements about economic systems refer to abstract, imaginary realities that don't (yet, according to them) exist... As I said, this is why they seem (to me, anyway) so much alike. It looks as if they find it more satisfying lobbing grenades at the flaws in the other guy's absolutist system than dealing with the complications of mere reality...TomViolenz wrote: I for one, am absolutely happy to have a free market decide for the goods that can easily turn a profit (Say: Cars, Midi-Controlers etc) and have a socialist way of managing the goods and services that don't (schools, roads, health care....).
I have bad news for you, sunshineTomViolenz wrote: I may have misunderstood Galt, but I hope he is not trying to argue the Capitalism is truth!
In other words, if you rationally consider what it is to be human, and what it is to act, then it follows that the only reasonable way of organizing human action is laissez-faire capitalism.[Mises] presents the case for laissez-faire capitalism based on praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics. It defends an a priori epistemology and underpins praxeology with a foundation of methodological individualism and speculative laws of apodictic certainty. Mises argues that the free-market economy not only outdistances any government-planned system, but ultimately serves as the foundation of civilization itself.
