Exactly, which means any theory which is baced upon vague mentalistic processes like choice, will, motivation, must ultimatly be bogus.
Determanistic behavior makes it possible?
Again, it seems you just do not understand the point of what was written.
Here an example Mises wrote : "“The science of human action, (behaviorism) that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics (in his opinion). In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical (again in his opinion). Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed.”
So, when behavior is shown to be deterministic it also become empirical. Since this was one of Mises prime assumptions in creating Austrain economics, what effect does proving this assumption wrong have on the rest of his work?
Yep. Austrian analysis rests on causality. Throw away determinism and it goes kaput. Mises understood this and, in fact, was a determinist.
OK, then let me help you. I am sayingthat terms such as “choice” and “Freewill” do not exist. They are mentalistic, blackbox tersm for explaining behavior. Does that make my point more clear?
Still irrelevant. When I said they make choices, I really mean that they act. And that is all that is important, because the processes that predetermine our “choices” are so complex that it would be almost impossible to predict the behaviour of billions of people interacting. So from an economic perspective when someone comes to a crossroads that we term as a “choice” we can only know after the fact which way the individual was predetermined to go.
A free market is the best way to allowcate resources given the impossiblity of predicting the predetermined path for billions of people.
And I am saying behavior is not so complex as to be impossible to predict or control behavior and create preferences, so that assumption does not fly.
Also, a “free market” has never existed. Any approximation of a free market is by definition inequitable. There fore even if it were possible for a true free market to come into existence tomorrow it would require a redistribution so that everyone started from an equal point from that day forward.
Since that will not happen a free market will never exist and would be resisted even by the supposed supporters of it.
Although I still think you’re trolling, this one might be too good to resist.
Can you demonstrate or prove that “behavior is not so complex as to be impossible to predict or control behavior and create preferences”?
To do this, you’ll need to provide definitions for “behavior”, “predict”, and "control. You might also need to provide a definition for “preference”, but I’ll let that one slide for now.
It is quite complex in any real economy, see the huge failures of positivism in economic matters.
And starting from equal point is by no means necessary for a truly free market. As long people are able to trade and negotiate without the interference of a thirdy party enforcing or demanding something, it’s a free market.
“Mises Daily has something to say about this thread:”
Did you actually read this stuff??? When was this book “Theory & history” written 1920? You are actually quoting something from 1920 like it is relevant?
"It is quite complex in any real economy, see the huge failures of positivism in economic matters.
And starting from equal point is by no means necessary for a truly free market. As long people are able to trade and negotiate without the interference of a thirdy party enforcing or demanding something, it’s a free market."
See now that is exactly the type of knee-jerk response I expect from non-economics who only stick to their ideals insomuch as it makes them happy and make exceptions when it does not. Go a head, show me the data or journal article that backs up anything you just posted about an equal start point not being needed for a true free market. Which does not matter because you will never find any serious economics who seriously proposes that a true free market can exist anyway.
The closest we have ever gotten to a free market is the derivatives market which collapsed and caused the current economic situation. Who do you blame for that hmm? In a market with not a single regulation, I guess the invisable hand was jacking off or something.
Market fundamentalism is flawed. So please before people complain that they are being ignored again I will only reply to posts from from economists because the opportunity cost is too great otherwise.
You obviously subscribe to the fallacious whig theory of the history of science. Fun fact: science takes wrong turns sometimes.
That is your response to my point out that that passage is totally outdated, or if it was wiritten within the last 60 years then it is pure crap?
Maybe English is your second language (so no big deal), but I am unsure what you’re asking.
You obviously subscribe to the fallacious whig theory of the history of science. Fun fact: science takes wrong turns sometimes.
No, it is just flat out, pure and simple wrong. The facts are wrong, unless it was written in 1920 and then it was accurate for 1920.
Lets assume only people with Mises fetishists are reading this post and know nothing else. First he quotes Watson who isn’t even a behaviorist as a reference for his description of behaviorism. Second Watson did his work in the 1920’s so I am hoping the book was written then. Second he refer to stimulus-response theory as though it were the same thing as behaviorism again it isn’t , not even close.
So you only have two outcomes, First it is incredibly outdated which would make it irrelevant, or it is total crap. Either way it is irrelevant. And if no one here knows that that that also says something. If someone sadi the earth is flat and the Sun rises in the North there is no discussion it’s just plain wrong. Mises description of what behaviorism is in Theory & History is either very old or wrong period. So any assumptions based upon it are most likely also wrong.
First of all, Theory and History is a 1957 book.
Second of all, in response to someone saying that the book was relevant to this thread (which is about determinism, will, and economics), you said, “When was this book “Theory & history” written 1920? You are actually quoting something from 1920 like it is relevant?” That implies that its age (and its age alone) makes it irrelevant to questions concerning determinism, will, and economics. That proposition is quite obviously incorrect.
First of all, Theory and History is a 1957 book.
Second of all, in response to someone saying that the book was relevant to this thread (which is about determinism, will, and economics), you said, “When was this book “Theory & history” written 1920? You are actually quoting something from 1920 like it is relevant?” That implies that its age (and its age alone) makes it irrelevant to questions concerning determinism, will, and economics. That proposition is quite obviously incorrect.
Yes it is correct, age and age alone made it incorrect. In fact it was incorrect even in 1957. His description of what behaviorism i is wrong, even in 1957. The closest time it would have been correct would have been 1920’s so that was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since he wrote that in 1957 then it was already 30 years out of date with behavioral science at the time.
So you are saying it was my mistake to give Mises the benefit of the doubt and just assume he did not know what he was talking about which is the case now.
This is not an opinion, what he write in that book when he describes behaviorism is wrong. That is a point of fact.Are you telling me no one here can accept that fact that he was wrong in his description of behaviorism?
And I am saying behavior is not so complex as to be impossible to predict or control behavior and create preferences, so that assumption does not fly.
Really? That is a bold statement. If you mean people can be manipulated and general trends can be predicted… sure. But to do so with the accuracy to organize global economies… no chance.
Also, a “free market” has never existed. Any approximation of a free market is by definition inequitable. There fore even if it were possible for a true free market to come into existence tomorrow it would require a redistribution so that everyone started from an equal point from that day forward.
Dont know where you get your definition of a free market, or why you think that a free market requires redistribution.
Determinism doesn’t do anything to invalidate Austrian methodology or theory. The Business Cycle theory still works, theses on Human Action still work, free markets still are subject to supply and demand, etc. It’s obvious that humans make choices, and that is what economics attempts to study. Determinism and free will are just descriptions of how those choices are generated, and I don’t see why they need to effect econ in any fashion.
Now there are a lot of libertarians who try to weave in metaphysical libertarianism into their narratives, but that’s a different topic.