tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8106299044968772853..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: The Trolls on Bob Murphy’s Blog Embarrass him over Subjective UtilityLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55556256099142665732015-05-31T11:14:08.596-07:002015-05-31T11:14:08.596-07:00Just to clarify my point, here is a quote by Fried...Just to clarify my point, here is a quote by Friedrich Nietzche criticising Utilitarianism:<br />“Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.”<br />Source: "http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/548377-man-does-not-strive-for-happiness-only-the-englishman-does"<br /><br />Obviously Nietzsche defines 'happiness' in this quote as the emotion of happiness, rather than as utility. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08098966216071132244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-46084814901154804182015-05-31T11:01:57.697-07:002015-05-31T11:01:57.697-07:00Actually, I won't ask them, this post http://c...Actually, I won't ask them, this post http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2015/05/yet-more-on-utility-theory.html shows that my explanation is certainly correct.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08098966216071132244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-894199325556675802015-05-31T10:47:04.140-07:002015-05-31T10:47:04.140-07:00I think he saying that people don't necessaril...I think he saying that people don't necessarily act to satisfy their emotions; for example, hunger is not an emotion, even though people act to satisfy their hunger (although some people do engage in 'emotional eating', eating to satisfy their emotions rather than their physical hunger. This is one of the main causes of obesity). As for the assertion of 'nothing to do with … satisfaction'. It depends on whether you define 'satisfaction' as the satisfaction of ends, or the feeling of satisfaction; if you do define satisfaction as the satisfaction of one's ends in general, then people act by definition to increase their satisfaction.<br /><br />I admit I interpreted them the way you did when I first read their posts, but reading Bob Murphy's example of going to the dentist makes me think otherwise. I will ask them myself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08098966216071132244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41271496176556900882015-05-31T06:25:27.084-07:002015-05-31T06:25:27.084-07:00Clearly you haven't read what those halfwits h...Clearly you haven't read what those halfwits have been arguing for days.<br /><br /><i>“Utility is the subjective appraisement of the usefulness of a means towards end satisfaction. <b>Nothing to do with emotions, happiness or satisfaction out there.”</b></i><br />http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2015/05/cardinal-vs.-ordinal-utility.html#comment-1490751 <br /><br />Since satisfaction and uneasiness are emotions that view is ridiculous.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-35800404850500921752015-05-31T05:59:28.486-07:002015-05-31T05:59:28.486-07:00It seems to me you have misinterpreted their argum...It seems to me you have misinterpreted their arguments; you interpret them as saying that according to Austrian economics, the choices people make have nothing to do with the emotions they feel. That is not what they were saying. Their point was that Austrian utility theory is not concerned with WHICH PARTICULAR emotions cause people to make certain choices; it is just concerned with the fact that people make choices, rather than why they make these choices.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08098966216071132244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6210878041293426242015-05-26T09:00:35.781-07:002015-05-26T09:00:35.781-07:00Yeah, the whole modern Austrian school's epist...Yeah, the whole modern Austrian school's epistemological foundations are a horrible mess. They do not even know how to justify it. <br /><br />You remember how Bob Murphy -- taking his cues from David Gordon -- attempted to deny Mises' view that praxeology is synthetic a priori? If that is so, that would make it (1) simply empirical or (2) analytic a priori and saying nothing about reality.<br /><br />Also, Harold found a brilliant passage from Human Action:<br /><br /><i>"In colloquial speech we call a man “happy” who has succeeded in attaining his ends. A more adequate description of his state would be that he is happier than he was before. <b>There is however no valid objection to a usage that defines human action as the striving for happiness.<br /><br />But we must avoid current misunderstandings. The ultimate goal of human action is always the satisfaction of the acting man’s desire.</b> There is no standard of greater or lesser satisfaction other than individual judgments of value, different for various people and for the same people at various times. What makes a man feel uneasy and less uneasy is established by him from the standard of his own will and judgment, from his personal and subjective valuation. Nobody is in a position to decree what should make a fellow man happier."</i><br /><br />Could you have a more explicit statement that utility is bound up with the human state of mind/emotion we know as satisfaction or desire for <br />something over something else? <br /><br />Also, utility is satisfaction but frequently linked with an array of other common emotions: pleasure, happiness, etc.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-8942430156072762362015-05-26T08:22:10.907-07:002015-05-26T08:22:10.907-07:00John Arthur
MF thinks Austrian Economics is a prio...John Arthur<br />MF thinks Austrian Economics is a priori true and cannot be disproven. No empirical evidence can show it to be in error. He also says it is a "non-predictive" science. Which of course he says tells us empirical truths, such as the supposed ill-consequences of fractional reserve banking.<br />I'm not kidding. <br />He's not alone in these beliefs; many of Murphy's regulars share them<br /><br />LK: Odd how they still talk about me. Do they still speculate about who could be Ken B in disguise, like some sort of Scarlet Pimpernel of the Blogoshpere?<br />Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57785550250668057692015-05-26T04:27:11.226-07:002015-05-26T04:27:11.226-07:00Oi, LK. If you're going to shield your preciou...Oi, LK. If you're going to shield your precious snarkbaby followers from argumentative (but never obscene!) counters, at least consider extending the same courtesy both ways and nix Miguel's empty invective, eh? Everybody, without exception in my experience, hates a double standard.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58436234542115469782015-05-25T04:21:49.861-07:002015-05-25T04:21:49.861-07:00"Hasn't Roddis heard of price fix markets...<i>"Hasn't Roddis heard of price fix markets? etc. "</i><br /><br />Roddis hasn't heard of a lot of things, and is simply the most stupid and ignorant vulgar Austrian on the internet.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26987359902234243502015-05-25T04:18:46.679-07:002015-05-25T04:18:46.679-07:00I have no idea what Major_Freedom thinks. His posi...I have no idea what Major_Freedom thinks. His positions change frequently and one can never really know what crazy nonsense he will say next.<br /><br />But, yes, on that thread amongst other things he says:<br /><br /><i>"meaning of “purely subjective” means you cannot even speak of what is going on in the minds of others, emotions or otherwise"</i><br /><br />He also seems to reject empirical evidence. <br /><br />This destroys the basis of Austrian economics -- such as diminishing marginal utility, disutility of labour etc. -- since these ideas of praxeology are supposed to be saying things about the beliefs and minds of real world human beings, and you cannot know they are true a priori, since this requires discredited Kantian synthetic a priori knowledge.<br /><br /><i>"How can anyone discover all the theorems of economics based on deduction and introspection as MF seems to claim? "</i><br /><br />You cannot. The Austrians claim you can but only by means of Kantian synthetic a priori knowledge, which cannot be taken seriously:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-should-we-reject-existence-of.html<br /><br />In fact, you cannot even prove the action axiom without treating it empirically:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-epistemological-status-of.html<br /><br />Also, even Mises and Rothbard admitted the disutility of labour axiom -- one of the important foundational axioms of praxeology -- is empirically and only proven empirically:<br /><br /><i><b>"The disutility of labor is not of a categorial and aprioristic character</b>. We can without contradiction think of a world in which labor does not cause uneasiness, and we can depict the state of affairs prevailing in such a world …. <b>Experience teaches that there is disutility of labor.</b> ”</i> (Mises 1949: 65).Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76168636879267142202015-05-25T03:30:40.793-07:002015-05-25T03:30:40.793-07:00Hi LK,
I'm not sure that I understand Major F... Hi LK,<br /><br />I'm not sure that I understand Major Freedom but am I correct in thinking he rejects empirical evidence for his economic hypotheses?<br /><br /> I take it that he rejects statistical testing? He seems to suggest this in comment 1493222 where he rejects positivism and empiricism.<br /><br />How can anyone discover all the theorems of economics based on deduction and introspection as MF seems to claim? <br /><br />John ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-22989187077949952982015-05-25T03:11:03.114-07:002015-05-25T03:11:03.114-07:00Hi LK,
Hasn't Roddis heard of price fix marke...Hi LK,<br /><br />Hasn't Roddis heard of price fix markets? And doesn't Roddis know that Keynes saw full employment equilibrium as a special case of his more general theory where the economy can settle down at a less than full employment equilibrium and this can occur even when prices are fully flexible, not just when prices are sticky.<br /><br />John ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29366429024268026682015-05-25T02:11:11.652-07:002015-05-25T02:11:11.652-07:00Here you go, Ken B: no tread at Bob's blog wou...Here you go, Ken B: no tread at Bob's blog would be complete without a stark, raving mad comment from Bob Roddis:<br /><br /><i>" The Keynesian claim that prices or wages can or do become “sticky” makes no a priori logical sense <b>nor is there any evidence that it ever happens</b>, even in a totally corrupt price-distorted Keynesian environment. "</i><br />http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2015/05/lord-keynes-strikes-again.html#comment-1492666<br /><br />Presumably roddis thinks all prices and wages are completely flexible, then? <br /><br />If that were so, then no recessions would happen, nor would Austrian business cycles occur.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-61423247161506710282015-05-23T20:16:52.731-07:002015-05-23T20:16:52.731-07:00I continue to read Bob Murphy's blog, because ...I continue to read Bob Murphy's blog, because I like his tone and manner. After commenting on his blog some from time to time, I drew the conclusion that, as a general matter, the ideas being expressed about the power of the free market to substitute for any governmental intrusion in our lives were wildly unrealistic and impractical. At times, I felt some commenters on Bob's blog came pretty close to being cranks and crackpots. That being said, I would urge you to tone down the invective. The persistent use of ad hominem attacks eventually tends to make you yourself look like something of a crank, and greatly diminishes the force of your argument.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745944247614589577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-56222653518415373582015-05-23T14:41:03.770-07:002015-05-23T14:41:03.770-07:00Yes. I'll say it for you. Murphy is not always...Yes. I'll say it for you. Murphy is not always intellectually honest. And he is concerned with his position as a cult leader. A cult leader can put down followers by upping the ante, "no Bala, you are wrong but only because you didn't go far enough" is the kind of thing that sells to the followers. It enhances one's position as a cult leader. Not all forms of chastisement do. Bob avoids those.<br />Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-18283149276808377062015-05-23T14:34:52.557-07:002015-05-23T14:34:52.557-07:00It is Skinnerism. Allied to the claim they don'...It is Skinnerism. Allied to the claim they don't do psychology! Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-87191585697721560032015-05-23T14:33:13.932-07:002015-05-23T14:33:13.932-07:00Quite possibly!
Though, curiously, whenever I pr...Quite possibly! <br /><br />Though, curiously, whenever I produce what I think any reasonable person can see is a devastating refutation of one of Bob's post, he usually just shuts up, doesn't say anything in the comments section, and quickly moves on to another post.<br /><br />Notice how he won't even give me a straight answer to the question: "does subjective utility in Austrian theory actually have nothing — absolutely zero — to do with the emotions we know as happiness, pleasure or satisfaction, as bala outrageously said? "Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-65417391895443665292015-05-23T14:28:26.223-07:002015-05-23T14:28:26.223-07:00Check out M_F's comment here:
"The meani...Check out M_F's comment here:<br /><br /><i>"The meaning of “purely subjective” means you cannot even speak of what is going on in the minds of others, emotions or otherwise"</i><br />http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2015/05/lord-keynes-strikes-again.html#comment-1491867<br /><br />Have you ever heard anything so stupid?<br /><br />If you cannot even say inductively it is highly probable that other human beings feel and think this and that and have the same basic emotions as other people, the whole basis of Austrian economics and all economics and social sciences would fall apart. <br /><br />E.g., how would Austrians, for instance, know that people maximise utility?<br /><br />Or that all or most people experience disutility from labour (as in the disutility of labour axiom)?<br /><br />How would you know that people experience diminishing marginal utility from each successive unit of the same good? lolLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-7440448356034613082015-05-23T14:02:36.776-07:002015-05-23T14:02:36.776-07:00By the way did you notice that Bob Murphy cannot r... By the way did you notice that Bob Murphy cannot refrain from speculating and attributing motives? I got a similar treatment when I had the temerity to point out lacunae in his understanding of the Bible. And other topics. Better watch yourself or you will be "the new Ken B". 😂Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-8796523834897079502015-05-23T14:00:05.445-07:002015-05-23T14:00:05.445-07:00This is the usual Austrian prevarication: slipperi... This is the usual Austrian prevarication: slipperiness on the words satisfaction or utility. They take a motte and Bailey approach. It is clear that a normal parlance they mean by utility subjective satisfaction, an end sought by a human actor with wants and judgments; and this is why they counsel economists to use introspection. It is the basis of the axiom of action. However when the logical problems from this arise, they retreat to the motte "it's a formal term." If it is only a formal term then Austrian economics is without substance, it cannot possibly predict even something as simple as the downward sloping demand curve for an individual. It makes mockery of the claim of methodological individualism if individual behavior cannot in principle be subjected to any analysis or prediction.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72552478183267925932015-05-23T13:54:44.108-07:002015-05-23T13:54:44.108-07:00Josiah makes short work of Tel and the others.
Josiah makes short work of Tel and the others.<br /><br />Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62457922200620962272015-05-23T09:07:47.697-07:002015-05-23T09:07:47.697-07:00Why, Hedlund? You are as dogmatic as Austrians are...Why, Hedlund? You are as dogmatic as Austrians arewww.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-59814244922351649252015-05-22T17:45:01.638-07:002015-05-22T17:45:01.638-07:00I forgot that the vulgar internet Austrian cult is...<i>I forgot that the vulgar internet Austrian cult is a reliable source of stupidity just as bad as Marxism.</i><br /><br />Hey, leave us out of this.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.com