This one is up today as a Daily.
“Praxeology is not psychology”
I thought you should have mentioned this in the previous article when you first introduced praxeology, but I’m glad you at least made this very important distinction now.
All in all, the article is very good. Like the previous one.
Danny,
Regarding your article on marginalism, I think you unfairly treat the concept of marginalism in the mainstream. How diminishing marginal returns is treated in an introductory textbook to microeconomics, written for students who have absolutely no background on the topic and written by authors who had no intention of writing a formal treatise on economics, does not represent how marginalism is treated by the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or other related schools of thought.
I don’t think that any serious mainstream professor would disagree with the formulation of marginal utility that you present in your article, except for the comments on empiricism and apriorirism.
Mises on Marginalism is up as a Daily today. I changed some of the wording in response to Catalan’s helpful criticism. Attached to this post is a PDF of a new one: Mises on Uncertainty.
Mises on Uncertainty (with a new intro and conclusion) is up on mises.org today as What Mises Can Teach the Quants.
Daniel,
Without going into the class/case probabilities dichotomy, I think that you overstated the problems experienced by the quantitative strategies in your example. There are unforseeable “down” periods in every entrepreneurial endeavor. For most quant strategies, Aug 2007 was a mere blip followed by their best historical performances since then. There are quantitative/systematic ways of protecting a quantitative strategy from the “unknown unknowns”.
Would appreciate it if anybody could double-check the numbers in my examples.
Here’s another one that already ran recently: In Praise of Old Books.
And attached is one I recently finished called “Why Liberalism?”
Good article.
I spotted two grammatical oddities:
“As for the rest of the non-materialistic populace, the only thing that can in reality be expected from a legal/political order are changes in material conditions.”
..that in reality can be.. ?
“As for direct provision of spiritual well being, as Mises says above, they can only attain that from themselves.”
..for themselves?
Thanks Nielsio.
Here’s another article I’ve written called “Concordia Rex”.
Nice one.
Daniel,
Do you know when Why Liberalism is going to be up?
Would you mind if I and others do things with the text already?
Sometime this upcoming week, or maybe the next.
Do you mean like quoting it and stuff? Sure, that’s fine.
I’d like to ask ViewpointLibertarian to read it (example of his: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQLfPCXIakU ).
And I want to put it on my site for easy reading/linking.
Oh, for that I think it’s better to wait, since the Mises Daily version might be different, and that’s the one most people will read.
Actually, on second thought it probably won’t be that different, so feel free to get started if you’d rather not wait. Thanks, I appreciate it.
Anarcho-Syndicalism: A Recipe for Ruin (see attached), adapted from this debate.
On Morality and Utility (see attached).
In Defense of Mises’ Utilitarianism (see attached).