tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post6309555278796192984..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Limits of the Human Action AxiomLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13324672586879041812014-02-07T12:26:51.649-08:002014-02-07T12:26:51.649-08:00And with apodictic truth?? :)And with apodictic truth?? :)Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52648038745098020222014-02-07T12:14:39.968-08:002014-02-07T12:14:39.968-08:00The one axiom problem? You haven't reckoned wi...The one axiom problem? You haven't reckoned with the fiendishly clever Major Freedom. He starts with the single axiom 1=2. All his results follow.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66059595261979009792013-11-20T20:04:31.553-08:002013-11-20T20:04:31.553-08:00"Austrian Economics makes no real assumptions...<i>"Austrian Economics makes no real assumptions. "</i><br /><br />It makes no assumptions! It that were true it would never have massive epistemological assumptions -- never adequately proven -- about the validity of Kantian synthetic a priori knowledge or apriorism. Yet Misesian praxoelogy does.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62336803962038135882013-11-20T19:23:40.845-08:002013-11-20T19:23:40.845-08:00"Limits of the Human Action Axiom"
But ..."Limits of the Human Action Axiom"<br /><br />But that's the point. Austrian Economics makes no real assumptions. It's just what remains once you realize that economics is not a real science and none of the leftist social engineering schemes have rigorous evidence behind them.asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03025714685907364195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-74648387787647070932011-03-02T06:24:46.723-08:002011-03-02T06:24:46.723-08:00And production of products in which you have compa...<i>And production of products in which you have comparative advantage does not necessarily provide a sustainable path to growth.</i><br /><br />But who has ever claimed that heeding to comparative advantage is the <i>only</i> factor that guarantees a sustainable path to growth? Mongolia is supposed to be some another libertarian paradise, just after Somalia maybe? In fact, the poorer the country, the more it heeds to comparative advantage precisely because it is too poor to waste taxpayers money to do otherwise. All the liberal recommendations are applicable only after you have build up enough capital and funds to be wasted by "progressive" government.Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-45062620593831838922011-03-02T05:46:17.133-08:002011-03-02T05:46:17.133-08:00"You should produce only products which you h...<i>"You should produce only products which you have comparative advantage to produce."</i><br /><br />And production of products in which you have comparative advantage does <i>not</i> necessarily provide a sustainable path to growth.<br /><br />Mongolia is a good exmaple of that.<br /><br />The rest of your comments are either (1) irrelevant or (2) true, but in no way refute what I have said.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54442434594103767462011-03-02T05:30:18.592-08:002011-03-02T05:30:18.592-08:00(1) Comparative advantage precisely says that it d...(1) Comparative advantage precisely says that it <i>does</i> matter what you produce. You should produce only products which you have comparative advantage to produce. I'm sure liberal theories can tell you specifically that the Japanese should make tv sets and Americans should make tv series. After all, that's the sort of knowledge behind all the protectionist measures correct? So it's actually you who say it does <i>not</i> matter what you produce, as long as your liberal theory says it should be produced.<br /><br />(2) As if it were libertarians and Austrians who wanted to protect old industries to save jobs...<br /><br />(3) Returns to scale are available to <i>all</i>, so they are <i>irrelevant</i> to <i>comparative</i> advantage (note the word <i>comparative</i>). Physics is same in Japan and US. But your point is actually a variant of the liberal "dumping" fallacy. Liberals forget returns to scale apply also <i>lossess</i>, not only to <i>profits</i>. When a liberal finds out about returns to scale, he thinks a big producer can squash smaller ones by selling products below costs. Correct economic theory (and historical evidence) clearly shows the bigger the producer, the quicker it will bleed out using such strategy. Entry costs are indeed higher because of economies of scale (because you have to invest heavily first), but then again if a startup entrepreneur can convince investors it actually has <i>comparative</i> advantage, it will be easy for him to get the required startup capital.<br /><br />I mean, c'mon, in all the 3 points you've accused Austrians of what are in fact inherently <i>liberal</i> arguments. Can it get even more absurd?Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-11003700437272894152011-03-02T04:48:46.378-08:002011-03-02T04:48:46.378-08:00The hidden assumptions underlying the whole argume...The hidden assumptions underlying the whole argument of Ricardo and Mises:<br /><br />(1) it does not matter what you produce, as long as you do it in a way that gives you comparative advantage;<br /><br />(2) technology is unchanging and uniform; and<br /><br />(3) there are no returns to scale.<br /><br />These <i>hidden assumptions</i> are the basis for the argument that free trade by comparative advantage is mutually benefical.<br /><br />They are false. Therefore the case for free trade in Ricardo and Mises is false, even if the <i>stated </i> assumptions are true.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16555647523608887132011-03-02T04:20:25.792-08:002011-03-02T04:20:25.792-08:00But I'm engaging all right. It is relevant, be...But I'm engaging all right. It <i>is</i> relevant, because international immobility of factors of production is as false clasical liberal assumption as labor theory of value. Austrian School explicitely calls them false, as your Mises quotes show, so where's the Austrian School rebuttal? Just because Ricardo arrived at a true conclusion using false assumptions does not disprove the conclusion itself. Every mad man's rational action would then make rationality irrational. It's absurd. I can't see how repeating Mises' arguments against Ricardo's assumptions is supposed to rebut praxeology just because Mises has shared some of Ricardo's conclusions. Again, this is precisely as sophisticated as "even Smith wanted taxes" argument against Austrians.Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79177424264259875932011-03-02T03:57:00.011-08:002011-03-02T03:57:00.011-08:00Clearly you haven't read the post properly or ...Clearly you haven't read the post properly or you just refuse to engage with it.<br /><br />The labour theory of value is totally irrelevant to Ricardo's argument for free trade, by the way.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57708083727337413792011-03-02T03:46:09.097-08:002011-03-02T03:46:09.097-08:00You have merely quoted Mises saying Ricardian auxi...You have merely quoted Mises saying Ricardian auxiliary assumptions are invalid. If Mises/Rothbard actually ever accepted Smith/Ricardo assumptions (like labor theory of value), Austrian School would be Marxist.Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-3878074664700832492011-03-02T03:32:01.054-08:002011-03-02T03:32:01.054-08:00"you've only shown (by quoting... Mises) ...<i>"you've only shown (by quoting... Mises) that some of Ricardian auxiliary assumptions do not hold."</i><br /><br />I demonstrated that Mises and Ricardo's <i>hidden</i> assuptions are invalid, and without them the case for free trade does not work.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-83447354246946560402011-03-02T03:25:23.287-08:002011-03-02T03:25:23.287-08:00Mises' Ricardian law of association is based o...<i>Mises' Ricardian law of association is based on comparative advantage</i><br /><br />Right, but you've never rebutted comparative advantage as such, you've only shown (by quoting... Mises) that some of Ricardian auxiliary assumptions do not hold. Praxeology does confirm some of (not all) classical liberal <i>conclusions</i>, but it does not share most classical liberal <i>assumptions</i>.<br /><br />http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj23n3/cj23n3-6.pdf<br /><br />Your argument against Austrian School is not any more sophisticated than all those ignorant "even Smith wanted taxes" ones, as if again, Austrian School has not spent so much time to debunk all the clasical liberal fallacies that are prevalent in mainstream economics even today (like, say, homo oeconomicus).Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79495817163929856452011-03-02T03:03:01.169-08:002011-03-02T03:03:01.169-08:00"which have nothing to do with praxeology, an...<i>"which have nothing to do with praxeology, and you should be very well aware of Mises/Rothbard's opinion on Smith/Ricardo works. There is no school that criticize them more harsly"</i><br /><br />Mises' Ricardian law of association is based on comparative advantage. That Mises criticises other parts of Smith/Ricardo works is a red herring.<br /><br /><i>"You've concluded before that apriorism sucks just because some guy Leibniz deduced false conclusions from false assumptions."</i><br /><br />Ridiculous straw man. Try again.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10486562995620985872011-03-02T02:51:17.716-08:002011-03-02T02:51:17.716-08:00LK, again, your "one example" (which is ...LK, again, your "one example" (which is all I know of) of allegedly false praxeology assumptions describe Ricardo's assumptions, which have <i>nothing</i> to do with praxeology, and you should be very well aware of Mises/Rothbard's opinion on Smith/Ricardo works. There is <i>no</i> school that criticize them more harsly, so you might as well rebut Austrian School by rebutting Marxism.<br /><br />You've concluded before that apriorism sucks just because some guy Leibniz deduced false conclusions from false assumptions. Big deal, every religion does that, does that prove logic fallible? What a logic! But your strongest rebbutal against praxeology assumptions you can come up with is calling them names like "trivial", as if that's precisely what self-evident assumptions should not be, or "hidden", but you never give any example of "hidden", only one stated explicitely by Mises... I mean, c'mon. I can get Mike Huben's simplistic bias, accusing me of tu quoque just to use a tu quoque argument in his next post, but you really seem more sophisticated.Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.com