Thursday, March 14, 2013

Robert Vienneau — Benedetto Croce As A Precursor To Ludwig Von Mises


For the philosophy buffs.

Thoughts on Economics
Benedetto Croce As A Precursor To Ludwig Von Mises
Robert Vienneau

18 comments:

Bob Roddis said...

Eugen Böhm von Bawerk effectively destroyed Marx's silly labor theory of value prior to either Mises or Croce. It is almost impossible to believe that anyone could conceivably believe such nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_B%C3%B6hm_von_Bawerk

Further, once one realizes the simple self evident fact that the only objective measure of someone else's subjective valuations for goods and services are the terms of voluntary exchanges (as Mises explained in 1912), it becomes obvious that the socialist prohibition upon such voluntary exchanges will destroy the only source of information necessary to satisfy human wants and needs.

Finally, it also becomes self evident that a funny money system such as advocated by MMTers will fatally distort that information system by distorting prices which is the self evident cause of Minsky Moments, among other problems, but which must be constantly and baselessly denied and/or ignored by MMTers, Keynesians and other inflationists. Apparently, they don't want to think about the fact the "problem" they seek to solve (unemployment in the market) does not exist but for their "cures" which are the cause of the problem in the first place.

Tom Hickey said...

In his Economic Theory of the Leisure Class (1927),[5] Bukharin argued that Böhm-Bawerk's axiomatic assumptions of individual freedom in his subjectivist theories are fallacious in that economic phenomena can only be understood under the prism of a coherent, contextualised, and historical analysis of society, such as Marx's. In contrast, non-Marxist economists have regarded Böhm-Bawerk's critique of Marx as definitive. Wikipedia

Depends on whose assumptions one accepts. This is the fundamental difference between those that accept methodological atomism and ergodicity and those who reject these assumptions in favor of institutionalism and complexity.

These methodological distinctions separate neoclassical and Austrian economics from Keynesian and heterodox economics in the present.

Bob Roddis said...

Bukharin argued that Böhm-Bawerk's axiomatic assumptions of individual freedom in his subjectivist theories are fallacious in that economic phenomena can only be understood under the prism of a coherent, contextualised, and historical analysis of society, such as Marx's.

1. Whatever the hell that means. What a load of pseudo-intellectual B.S. and gobbledygook.

2. When entrepreneurs are designing fashionable clothes and/or fashionable homes and/or fashionable music CDs to sell, they certainly must have some kind of feel for the “coherent, contextualised, and historical analysis of society” in order to know what people like and will buy. Which, by the way, MUST include an ability to know what people will want to buy. That process IS the “coherent, contextualised, and historical analysis of society” and is ignored and suppressed by statist Keynesians, Marxists and interventionists in general.

3. It warms my heart that you guys are so opening relying on Marx in support of your “somehow” theories. Lerner’s book was red and was concerned with establishing socialism through a mixture of a very controlled statist market. You are all a bunch of commies. The public will love that, right?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/5560086644/in/set-72157626353319778

Robert Vienneau said...

Does Roddis know that he has no idea what the linked post is about? That he is not discussing anything on-topic?

Tom Hickey said...

Bob Roddis hasn't figured out the meaning of "relevance" yet, and we don't seem able to explain it to him successfully.

Bob Roddis said...

When you guys resort to extreme obscurantism (as opposed to the more general kind you employ), I know I've struck a nerve.

Tom Hickey said...

Just "obscurantism" because you are clueless.

Robert Vienneau said...

Does Roddis know that he has no idea what the linked post is about? That he is not discussing anything on-topic?

Bob Roddis said...

Mr. Croce wrote this in 1908:

26. Some collectivist writers, bewailing the continual destruction of firms (those with higher costs) by free competition, think that the creation of enterprises to be destroyed later can be avoided and hope that with organized production it is possible to avoid the dissipation and destruction of wealth which such experiments involve, and which they believe to be the peculiar property of 'anarchist' production. Thereby these writers simply show that they have no clear idea of what production really is, and that they are not even disposed to probe a little deeper into the problem which will concern the Ministry which will be established for the purpose in the Collectivist State.

We repeat, that if the Ministry will not remain bound by the traditional technical coefficients, which would produce a destruction of wealth in another sense - in the sense that the greater wealth which could have been realized will not be realized - it has no other means of determining a priori the technical coefficients most advantageous economically, and must of necessity resort to experiments on a large scale in order to decide afterwards which are the most appropriate organizations, which it is advantageous to maintain in existence and to enlarge to obtain the collective maximum more easily, and which, on the other hand, it is best to discard as failures.


That's quite right. So maybe he beat Mises.

Robert Vienneau said...

I suppose that is Roddis mightily striving to be on-topic. But in the post to which he is pretending to reply, I wrote: "(For the purposes of this post, I put aside the controversy over socialist calculation. Croce has some comments on Pareto on socialism.)"

So Roddis remains off-topic.

Robert Vienneau said...

By the way, Roddis is quoting (an english translation of) Enrico Barone, not Benedetto Croce. Roddis is too stupid to get anything right.

Unknown said...

Yes Robert, because when you put the wrong name after a quote, it means everything you said prior is wrong.

Convenient way to ignore and not engage the core issues, huh?

I guess it would help in this gong show that you all realize that Mises refuted the entire edifice of "historicist" epistemology, such that Bukharin's comment:

"Bukharin argued that Böhm-Bawerk's axiomatic assumptions of individual freedom in his subjectivist theories are fallacious in that economic phenomena can only be understood under the prism of a coherent, contextualised, and historical analysis of society, such as Marx's."

is fallacious.

Historicism, as Mises showed, is self-refuting.

Tom Hickey said...

Historicism, as Mises showed, is self-refuting.

You can't show anything on a priori assumptions that are privileged from testing. even Hayek threw Mises under the bus when he realized that Popper's criticism was correct.


"Historicism" is empiricism, and Mises held that his aprioris were not contingent on empirical corroboration, including disconfirmation because they are "necessary truths."

Nonsense. That is what all metaphysicians say.

Tom Hickey said...

The major problem in arguing different theories is the assumption that their is a common reality in terms of which the debate is taking place and one side knows what it is and the other is mistaken.

What is actually happening is that different worldviews are being pitted against each other and none of the parties knows what reality is. That is what is at issue, and the answer of science is that the criterion is empirical testing.

Otherwise it's just a matter of kids shouting at each other, "Is so," "Is not."

There is no way to argue without agreeing on criteria, and those who reject empiricism as the criterion are by definition unscientific.

While some claim special insight in a particular regard, others others claim special insight that opposes or contradicts it. This is the history of thought.

Scientists in general have agreed that only publicly available available criteria apply in science and no special insights that are untested are accepted as anything more than heuristic until subjected to adequate testing against data.

While there are issue with this approach, it's the most rigorous yet devised.

However, this doesn't convince true believers to change their worldviews and they are welcome to believe whatever they wish. But if they are to convince skeptics their belief is true knowledge, then they have to provide criteria that are not subjective and therefore untestable independently of subjective agreement.

Bob Roddis said...

As Rothbard said:

Whether we consider the Action Axiom “a priori” or “empirical” depends on our ultimate philosophical position. Professor Mises, in the neoKantian tradition, considers this axiom a law of thought and therefore a categorical truth a priori to all experience. My own epistemological position rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas rather than Kant, and hence I would interpret the proposition differently. I would consider the axiom a law of reality rather than a law of thought, and hence “empirical” rather than “a priori.”

http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Defense%20of%20Extreme%20Apriorism,%20In.pdf

The empirically based unambiguous and undisputable fact or law of reality is that we cannot read other people’s minds and that the source of information about the wants and needs of the vast army of strangers who live on this planet is by examining the terms of trade of their voluntary exchanges. It is irrelevant whether this law of reality is labeled a priori or not or who first expressed it. Further, an additional empirically based unambiguous and undisputable fact of reality is that Keynesians, Marxists and “progressives” meticulously avoid engaging and/or comprehending this unambiguous and undisputable fact or law of reality because it undermines the entire foundation of their nefarious schemes to centrally control and rule humanity by force.

Tom Hickey said...

My own epistemological position rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas

Aristotle was a metaphysician, and his worldview delayed the scientific revolution for centuries when it was couple by Aquinas with dogmatic theology.

The Inquisition that imposed the Aristotelian-Thomistic worldview through torture and execution.

Rothbard is in real good company there.

Tom Hickey said...

Oh, and did I mention that Aristotle argued in favor of natural slavery (slaves were the "machines" of the economies of that day), and Aquinas agreed that slavery was compatible with natural law but not the law of God — "Further, slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2)."

Use of Aristotle and Aquinas (Rothbard, Paul Ryan) is an argument from authority, an informal fallacy. Appeal to Kant fares no better.

Moreover, one can't have it all ways, It's either Aristotle, Aquinas's interpretation of Aristotle, or Kant. These positions express incompatible worldviews.

So you can't have Mises and Rothbard, and be consistent.

Robert Vienneau said...

Now "Pete Petepete" has joined Roddis in babbling about topics utterly unrelated to the post.

Certainly if one cannot identify what quotations are Croce's and what ones are not, one is incapable o addressing the topic in the post title.

By the way, Marx was influenced by Aristotle in his picture of what life would be like in communism.