“The question isn’t whether people prefer homes, it is in a world of scarcity, how much home, and how much they prefer it determines how the structure of production should be organized.”
This exactly. For example, in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan there was talk about requiring buildings to be earthquake proof. How earthquake “proof” should they make them? How much will it cost? Will it be more expensive than just rebuilding cheaper structures after another earthquake, that is if another one strong enough even comes along anytime soon? Etc. etc.
It might just be me. When I see the word “optimality” or “optimal” being used, I initially assume the person is using it to refer to “the best” of something.
There’s no logical reason why the word “optimality” must imply objectivity, and that’s not what I meant. As far as your question goes, it depends on whether the “optimality” you’re referring to is acknowledged to be entirely within the individual’s mind.
I honestly don’t know. I seem to see plenty of non-Austrian economists use words like “optimal”, “optimality”, and “optimization”, but they never seem to fully explain what they mean by those words. Then again, I readily admit that they may have done so and I simply haven’t seen where they’ve done it.
In any case, I appreciate your clarification about what you mean by “optimality”. It seems to me that there’s really no difference between what you call “individual seeking of optimality” and what Austrian economists call “individual seeking of states of affairs that are more preferable to him over those that are less preferable to him”.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand what you mean by either of those two words. Again, this seems like an appeal to some sort of objective value schema - at least, on first glance.
First, let me ask you this: why do you want to measure utility in cardinal terms, regardless of whether units of dopamine* of some other measurement schema is being used? The best answer I’ve seen thus far is “Because it makes the math easier/more interesting” - but keep in mind that Austrians don’t care about the math.
Second, what do you think is the point of predicting and testing the behavior of people, whether they maximize their own utility or not?
Third, I take your phrase “inter-subjective comparisons are appropriate because we never attempt actual intersubjective comparisons” to mean the same thing as “inter-subjective comparisons are appropriate because inter-subjective comparisons are not appropriate”. In other words, it seems like a complete contradiction to me. Is there a flaw in my reasoning here?
Fourth and finally, if “the use of marginal utility using a common measure of utility is completely inconsequential”, why is it done? I simply don’t understand.
I think that remains to be seen. What then is the point of quantification and inter-subjective comparison?
It might just be me. When I see the word “optimality” or “optimal” being used, I initially assume the person is using it to refer to “the best” of something.
Well sure. Then perhaps the question ought to be “why does the word ‘best’ imply objectivity to you?”. You can identify what is “best” according to your subjective preferences, can’t you?
re: “I honestly don’t know. I seem to see plenty of non-Austrian economists use words like “optimal”, “optimality”, and “optimization”, but they never seem to fully explain what they mean by those words.”
“Optimization” is always a reference to constrained optimization. I think it’s left unsaid because it’s implied.
re: “It seems to me that there’s really no difference between what you call “individual seeking of optimality” and what Austrian economists call “individual seeking of states of affairs that are more preferable to him over those that are less preferable to him”.”
I strongly agree with you on this. I understand you all don’t like to use math, but I’ve thought for a long time that the math and your logical claims say the same thing. All a constrained optimization problem says is “the agent will continue to do something as long as the additional utility of doing that thing exceeds the additional disutility of doing that thing”. That’s always sounded to me like the sort of claim you all make.
re: “but keep in mind that Austrians don’t care about the math”
I’m aware - but understand when you ask me what I think about things, I don’t decide what I think with reference to what Austrians or anyone else cares about.
re: “In other words, it seems like a complete contradiction to me. Is there a flaw in my reasoning here?”
What I mean is this - no one ever goes out and tries to measure how much utility two people get from something and compare them. That use of intersubjective comparisons would be inappropriate. However, if we only use intersubjective comparisons to do some marginal analysis to derive a result that you agreed above is essentially the same as yours, why shouldn’t we?
re: “Fourth and finally, if “the use of marginal utility using a common measure of utility is completely inconsequential”, why is it done? I simply don’t understand.”
Because you can derive considerably more reasonable hypotheses to test than Austrians can.
re: “I think that remains to be seen. What then is the point of quantification and inter-subjective comparison?”
No, it does not “remain to be seen”. The subjectivity thing you all worry so much about is a dead issue. Every economist is a subjectivist and it baffles me that this point even caught on with you guys.
I did not want to mention it, but there is actually an entire forum somewhere - AN ENTIRE FORUM - for people who complain about being banned from Mises.Org forums!
And do you know what 80% of discussions there involve?
Yes, the legend that is liberty student. Pretty much everyone in that forum complains about you not giving them enough concessions. Which amounts to bullying in their eyes. (The rest 20% involves complaining about how only “privileged white people” post on Mises forums, which makes sense, since I am South Asian and you are part Asian)
I only found out about that particular forum, because at Daniel’s blog, somebody from that forum had posted a link to it, “warning” Daniel about…well…you.
This seems odd liberty student. Why do you like it that people think those things of you? Why do you like the fact that they feel the need to warn people about the way you interact with others? That doesn’t appear to me to be a good thing.
Prateek, as a public service, could you provide the link to the banned from Mises forum? Or to Daniel’s blog, at least?
As for LS and his antics, if you watch Peter Schiff videos, he has to deal with much worse. I learned a lot from watching how he does it, which is basically ignoring the personal side, and addressing the issues.
I almost hate to admit this, I haven’t banned a member in god knows how long, as I mostly handle stopping spam attacks and basic user account help.
That forum of people angry at me, should actually be angry at other folks, because I simply don’t work in the department that grinds their gears. Mind you, if they hate my posts, good for them. I would be disappointed if that group liked them.
Strangeloop, I deleted your second to last post which was just a personal shot at me. That’s the second time you’ve had posts deleted this week for inappropriate content. You’re at risk of losing your membership here if you continue to flaunt Daniel’s rules.
Because my esteeem isn’t dependent on earning the approval of the other monkeys in the jungle. Why should anyone care what random strangers think of them?
I don’t sit around obsessing about people on this forum, let alone off this forum. When I am not here, I hang out with people I like and do things I really enjoy. I don’t sit around thinking about SmilingDave or Strangeloop.
If anything, I feel badly for those people who obsesses about the Mises forums or me. They sound like jilted girlfriends or something. I am a big fan of living well, and unfortunately for them, I don’t even care to know who they are, let alone what they think of me, while they sit around all the time, talking about and presumably stalking me.
Agreed Dave, but doesn’t it bother you just a little bit that you spend time thinking about me? I mean, that Rockwell/Schiff thread, that’s a sign of obsession. Dude, I am not worth it.
SD, Prateek is exaggerating, as he is wont to do. There is no such forum. From time to time people on the Alliance of the Libertarian Left forum complain about us being mod tyrants, rich white fat males whose property should be redistributed, “arch-Catholic moral nihilists”, and other divers and sundry things. But the A.L.L. forum isn’t “devoted” to that. The thread linked to in Daniel Kuhen’s comments is this one.