Yes, you are right. The terminology ‘calculation’ is used for something where appraisement is a part of, or the solution to.
I will, however, emphasize, again that I never said that entrepreneurial decision making was back ward looking. I used another - wrong - definition of caclulation. Shit happens.
Not really; I feel really comfortable regarding my knowledge of the issue at hand, thank you very much.
I got frustrated because copy/pasting from a pdf file sucks.
Now we have settled this issue; could you respond to some previous questions, where you made some accusations without substantiating them?
Thanks.
This thread sucks.
Admittedly Mises can be very dry, which is why many people prefer Rothbard whose writings generally had quite a bit more wit sprinkled in. I forgive people who can’t get through Human Action. Lord knows I can’t.
I don’t think I agree with you about Hayek being inferior. I never was fond of praxeology to be honest. The majority of the conclusions are correct, yes, but Hayek methodology always seemed to be superior at explaining things like the organizing power of the price mechanism.
I am betting that our philosophical frameworks are hugely divergent, then. I don’t agree with Mises on everything, but as an Aristotilian I think praxeology is obviously true. In fact, I would say it is nonsense to deny it.
Hayek makes a far broader argument regarding the role of prices in the formation of entrepreneurial expectations and decision making. While Mises focuses on profit/loss accounting which provides feedback loops regarding the correctness of entrepreneurial decisions, Hayek focuses on how such decisions are formed, and how they coordinate economic activity (the fact that prices guide production). He focuses on how prices reflect and convey tacit and idiosyncratic knowledge (as opposed to scientific knowledge), which is dispersed amongst billions of individuals, and which can’t be formally expressed. His coordination argument, and Mises’ calculation argument, are merely two sides of the same coin; they are interrelated.
Hayek, in many cases, merely takes Mises’ ideas and expands upon them (the same way that Mises expanded upon Bohm-Bawerk’s ideas).
I haven’t read Hayek, except something about intellectuals. However, I heard Hoppe refer to Hayek’s contribution as “Hayek’s so-called contribution”. His criticism: the information problem is superfluous, whereas the information is by definition not available in the absence of genuine market prices.
BTW, there is not a binary set of options in “natural rights” and “consequentialism”.
BTW, there is not a binary set of options in “natural rights” and “consequentialism”.
This is true.
LOL!