They are simply thought experiments, they need to be extreme, and here’s an example of why:
If you came up to me and claimed “I would never hit an old lady” and I thought to myself, surely he can’t really, absolutely mean never. If I wanted to disprove your argument and I thougfht of a very plausable mundane situation laike to say “what if she swore at you?”, then you are likely to come back at me and say “nope, not even then” then I’d have to think of something else and our argument would go on and on. But if I create something much less likely, but still concevable like “what if a crazed gunmen came up to you and said ‘if you don’t punch an old lady I will shoot you’” then (presumably) you’d have to concede. The argument is then much shorter.
Now in my debate here on this forum several posters have claimed there is absolutely never any situation where a government could intervene to make a market better. I think they are wrong. If I try and give a mundane perfectly plausible example then the answer simply won’t be clear enough.
Perhaps (and please tell me if you agree), the posters who claim that a government could never* intervene to make a market better are rather like religious fundamentalists and aren’t representative of good Austrian thinking. Maybe Mises, Rothbard et al would actually say, “sure, its possible for governments to improve a market, but its very hard to do and so in practice they usually screw up”. I suspect this is the case. And if it is the case, then my original essay is correct.
They are simply thought experiments, they need to be extreme, and here’s an example of why:
If you came up to me and claimed “I would never hit an old lady” and I thought to myself, surely he can’t really, absolutely mean never. If I wanted to disprove your argument and I thougfht of a very plausable mundane situation like to say “what if she swore at you?”, then you are likely to come back at me and say “nope, not even then” then I’d have to think of something else and our argument would go on and on. But if I create something much less likely, but still concevable like “what if a crazed gunmen came up to you and said ‘if you don’t punch an old lady I will shoot you’” then (presumably) you’d have to concede. The argument is then much shorter.
Now in my debate here on this forum several posters have claimed there is absolutely never any situation where a government could intervene to make a market better. I think they are wrong. If I try and give a mundane perfectly plausible example then the answer simply won’t be clear enough.
Perhaps (and please tell me if you agree), the posters who claim that a government could never* intervene to make a market better are rather like religious fundamentalists and aren’t representative of good Austrian thinking. Maybe Mises, Rothbard et al would actually say, “sure, its possible for governments to improve a market, but its very hard to do and so in practice they usually screw up”. I suspect this is the case. And if it is the case, then my original essay is correct.
Yes, they do believe it is inherently impossible. That is what methodological subjectivism means. There is no objective way of determining people’s preferences. Only through their choices are their subjective preferences revealed.
To even accept that this is a possibility one cannot be methodologically subjectivist since in order to build such a simulation, that could accurately model a subjective individual, one would need an objective way of determining what those subjective preferences are. But even if we allow for this possibility, one could still be a pragmatic subjectivist. Until such a super-computer could be built, methodological subjectivism will be adhered to.
So, you’re saying that unless something can be measured objectively then all attempts to estimate its value it are futile and meaningless. So presumably you’d be trying out the “dead baby” picture in your shop. Is that right?
I don’t like your analogy. If in your example you to take the painting that your customers preferred and decided that it was not quite as beautiful as it could be, would you feel qualified to make some corrections to the painting? I don’t think so. I think that if you genuinely could improve upon the customer’s favourite painting, you could probably have painted your own picture from scratch better than all the others.
All we have in judging market outcomes is our own subjective evaluation. It is quite possible for you to declare that it would be more to your liking if the markets resolved themselves somewhat differently. But so what? The markets are there to serve and balance the ends of all the consumers, not only your ends. Unless you assume that everyone else shares your preferences, you have no reason to believe your notion of improvement is aligned with everyone elses.
Say you have a genius friend, much cleverer than you - he builds a super-complex machine that does some task fantastically well, clearly better than anyone has ever done before, and could be sold for millions of dollars. You then spot that he made a spelling mistake on his packaging (maybe English was not your friends first language). You then could then say “I can improve your product (by correcting the spelling on the box), even though I clearly could not have made it (all) myself”. Where’s the contradiction in that?
Well, they do that to a large degree, but not perfectly. Don’t forget that producers and consumers are kind of rivals. Their motivations are similar, but not perfectly matched. Companies LOVE competition amongst their suppliers, but they hate having to compete with other companies to supply their customers. If they can find some underhand method of competing which is subtle enough so that most of their customers don’t notice, then they will do it. Why do so many shops continuously employ “smoke and mirrors” pricing?
As an example. Look a seasonal fruit and veg pricing in UK supermarkets. Lots of produce is marked as “half price” all summer, when all that means is that it is half the price it was out of season when it would barely grow! It may well be that the produce is actually more expensive than the same time the previous year. If I am a rival shop selling fruit and veg how should I compete? Do I have to mislead the customers too? Now you could say that this misleading will get found out and there could be a backlash - but its been going on for years. If I was the minister for free trade I would “interfere with the market” and introduce laws to reduce smoke and mirrors pricing.
“Now in my debate here on this forum several posters have claimed there is absolutely never any situation where a government could intervene to make a market better.”
Your analogy has nothing to do with the Austrian argument. If someone spells something wrong, you have a frame of reference (a dictionary) that you can use to judge the accuracy of their spelling. The point is that no such external frame of reference exists by which we may judge the outcomes of markets.
We have already agreed on this point. Austrians do not believe markets are perfect. They do not object to interventionism on the basis that market outcomes could not be more efficient. They object to interventionism because of their subjectivist methodology.
Ok, what if we swap the bad spelling in my previous argument with an ugly picture that the genius machine builder drew himself on the packageing. Say he is a rubbish artist and I am a Matisse. Now can I claim to improve on the product despite not being able to make it all myself? There’s no “frame of reference” for the attractiveness of a picture is there?
I note that there is no entry in wikipedia for “subjectivist methodology”. Could you point me to a brief and clear definition of what that is. I feel I have an idea, but I just want to make sure.
Your example of produce is an example of marketing, it’s a sales promotion. Sure, they could advertise their product in the winter as being “double the price!” or just not market at all, but they choose to state a fact, which is the price is now half off since the winter month. Why is the price half off? Well, that’s not really relevant. It is.
I think what Fried Egg is failing to announcate [ or perhaps he does not know ] that there are actually two kinds of subjective values.
Explanatory and Normative.
Explanatory subjective value is when you appeal to the other person’s values in order to deduce the meaning of the actions.
Example: I hate skim milk and yet I see X drinking skim milk right next to me. I do not state ‘well X is drinking skim milk because I dislike skim milk’ I state ‘X is drinking skim milk because X values skim milk in some fashion’
Normative subjective value is when you state that all goals in life are equal and cannot be criticized. Mises was a big fan of this but not Rothbard. Mises thought we can only argue over the means of achieveing these goals but not the goals themselves.
Example: I want to be a violin player and X wants to play the tuba. I cannot state ‘well being a tuba player is a stupid thing, violin is so much better’ Both tuba and violin are equally valid ends. However, if X wants to learn the tuba by going to a violin player then I can say ‘Well you are doing it wrong, your means as a tuba player should be to seek out a tuba player and learn, not a violinist.’
So the less intelligent in our society can get ripped off mercilessly.
The research required to know that you’re not being ripped off by certain products can be immense. I don’t want to waste my time ploughing through small print when I buy a mobile phone contract or a get a new credit card. I want the government to help me a little by making laws that reduce the small-print surprises.
As I understood it, Mises merely meant that the evaluation of ends was outside of the scope of economics. We can discuss, compare and evaluate ends but then we have strayed outside of the realms of economics.
No. Nothing to do with intelligence. Everything to do with being an idiot. Idiots who refuse to learn and smarten up might get raw deals, yes. All the more incentive for them to do so…
Did your construct your own house? Did you build your own television? Did you pave your own driveway? Do you grow your own food? If not, then why do you think that you would necessarily screen all of your own purchases?