 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Since reading Socialism by Mises awhile ago, and since reading Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren it has been my goal to resolve specific contradictions. Now I may have an opportunity to do so if you are willing to continue.
First I must make more clear as to what this guiding principle behind your theory is and is not.
I am at a loss. I've read and reread your reply and can find no principle.
I don't wish to put worlds in your mouth so I can't conclude that, according to you, utility is not or is a principle. I think it is one and one that can be very accurately measured.
I can't conclude that value is a principle either; as far as I can tell.
I can't conclude that accounting is a principle either.
The only thing that appears to be conclusive is that economics, according to my interpretation of your words, is synonymous with chaos and therefore lacking any principle.
It may appear as if I have a Huge Chip on my shoulder and I can only try to explain this effect.
As far as I have been able to gather so far; the principle behind Austrian Economics is this:
“every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.” Carl Menger (1840 -1921)
My interpretation of that (neither confirmed nor denied by any current economic dabbler), is the principle called greed.
The securing part I can interpret as 'production' - but the exclusion of others part is very difficult to grasp without arriving at the greed principle.
There is one more thing that explains my "chip" and that concerns the obvious need, in any economic thought, to arrive at a price or from another angle; to arrive at a cost.
Which do you prefer: cost or price?
If the "theory" prefers price, then, is the following an example of the principle that one uses to arrive at price?
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm
The principle, then, of the common law, was, that every freeman, or freeborn male Englishman, of adult age, &c;., was eligible to sit in juries, by virtue of his civil freedom, or his being a member of the state, or body politic. Rut the principle of the present English statutes is, that a man shall have a right to sit in juries because he owns lands in fee‑simple. At the common law a man was born to the right to sit in juries. By the present statutes he buys that right when he buys his land. And thus this, the greatest of all the political rights of an Englishman, has become a mere article of merchandise; a thing that is bought and sold in the market for what it will bring.This:
A thing that is bought and sold in the market for what it will bring.
In other words: Price is what a thing on the market will bring.
Is that the principle behind your economic theory?
In other words: Does your education inspire you to calculate the price of a thing based upon how much it will bring?
If that is not understandable, then, I can try other words. If you are inclined to avoid the question, then, I think I can understand your reluctance and no matter what this remains a defining moment for me. It is wonderful to be welcomed into the membership of those who are afforded an ear.
Last edited on Sun May 21st, 2006 11:55 am by Joe Kelley