A rational and logical model for VALUE

[MAAA]

Greetings,

In my latest blog article, I have constructed a model for VALUE that aims to maximize its generality and eliminate dependencies. Many of you believe yourself to be farrr too sophisticated to concern yourself with the nuts and bolts (with your “nonlinear”, “optimized” differential equations and all) of economics. I however, believe that EVERYONE benefits from ruthlessly exploring the internal logic of all important DEFITIONS and CONSTRUCTS to find where they “crack”. This post will be the first in a series of posts entitled Rational Economists in Space, which will aim to find the most general possible definitions of some key concepts, the first of which is VALUE.

Here is the article

I promise that for those of you interested enough to make it to the end, you will enjoy the set up, treatment and discourse (internal or communal) that could result.

Also, notice that it goes some way to eliminating some “inconsistencies”, or “apparent discrepancies” between an objective and subjective theory of value (ie, mises vrs rand, as developed here)

I would really love to hear any and all thoughts, as I am sure there is a plethora of rational economic-minded people here that can help me learn and refine this. I have been working in isolation my whole life, so a little perspective is always welcome.

[wilderness]

@-

You might be interested in this. Link to full article in that post, and here below.

An excerpt from that article:

[quote user="Francois Facchini"]

:

Thomism [ie. natural law] consequently it links methodological subjectivism and ontological objectivism (Maki 1990, p. 295) and gives us the means to rectify our beliefs. It is ontological objectivism that enables us to affirm that we can have knowledge of economic phenomena that transcends our prejudices, opinions, and preconceptions about the world.

edit: This was also quoted in that above linked article in my post here:

@Facchini

Thomism legitimizes semantic judgment and defines economic science as a social ontology. “We may specify that theoretical economics represents economic universals as real objects” (Maki 1990, p. 296) or as social ontology that does not deny the need for a positive science expressing pragmatic judgments. On this basis, social ontology can justify its objective of proposing exact laws; in other words, defining the relations between universals. “The simple idea will be that exact economic laws in Menger’s sense are best understood as relations between economic universals” (Maki 1997, p. 487).

Which therefore lead me to this article I link here below that you might be interested in this as well.

I read through a bit of that thread you linked on objective-subjective linkage and I’ve been researching this myself for about a week or so since I’ve always thought it to be a philosophical nightmarish confusion between any individual that adheres to one side without consideration of what the other side means in real terms. I noticed a lot of talking past each other when the real meaning is conceptualized.

Universal and the Methodenstreit: A Re-examination of Carl Menger’s Conception of Economics as an Exact Science by Uskali Maki

I haven’t read this article yet but this is where my research has lead me thus far on this.

[Giant_Joe]

I actually found this article to be very interesting. I’ll bookmark this and possibly comment more on it later.