No, if you look in context I was merely defending a valid point, albeit an unrelated one, made by another poster. Now if you want to continue this you’re going to have to show that I claimed the two assertions to be related.
Your claims about ‘competing ends’ are nonsense. If they are unrelated, it’s your fault. YOU introduced the topic. And you did it because you thought it would ‘prove’ the superiority of ‘private’ monopolies. Now, you don’t want to admit it.
Here’s all the context. YOU quoted something I said and directly replied.
I was clearly talking about competition and you made an irrelevant remark at best. In reality you tried to make argument but since you now see that the argument is baseless you pretend you were just talking for the sake of it.
No, Stranger did, I do not know on which subject, nor do I care. I was merely defending a valid point, not once did I say that it relates to my argument, you’ve made the link, not I.
Well that’s nice, but you’re going to have to prove it.
Ok, now, provided the actual context, not what you’ve handpicked. Why don’t you show Stranger’s post, to show that I was merely defending a point made by him. No more than that.
My guess is that this is just a purposeful attempt to get of the subject, which is how as a result of time preference and opportunity cost a private monopoly is superior to a public one in terms of economic efficiency.
from Human Action; mises talking about how economics is value free; economics doesnt ‘aim’ for particular ends etc.
Fine. You were parroting what Stranger said. It’s still irrlevant. You chose to defend Stranger’s irrlevant point. Not my fault. (or maybe you thought it was relevant…?)
It was Stranger who introduced the irrelant topic you defended.
You might want to elaborate that a bit. It’s too vague - almost meaningless.
How does that contradict what I’ve said?
I have, you might want to refer to my earlier posts.
@Nir
‘Austrians’ also use the word utilitarian to refer to analyses which show whether mean X is useful to attain end Y. But that’s not what Giles and Stranger are talking about. Their assertions “economics is utilitarian” “economics is concerned with maximizing wealth” are as you note, wrong.
Are you saying that your not-relevant arguments about product substitution do apply to what we’re discussing ?
If not please notice that you’ve not proved at all that ‘private’ monopolists have any incentive to provide better services than public monopolists.
What do you mean by opportunity cost ?
you said
i gave you the benefit of the doubt and as Juan noted, encouraged you to state whether you were using utilitarian in the J.S.Mill traditional sense, or whether you were using it like you might say a table was a ‘utilitarian table’ i.e. useful. or whether you had some 3rd meaning for the word that you wanted to enlighten me with. and you were rather obtuse on the point, and left me thinking that you were putting it in the Mill bracket though wanting to avoid saying so. I came to that conclusion since you explicitly denied the ‘useful’ interpretation, and did not point me to a 3rd option.
you have been quite blunt with me telling me im wrong and to kiss you butt etc. (admittedly the latter was since edited out)
perhaps you would be so kind as to bluntly state whether economics is value free or value laden…
I’ve stated that they have the incentive not to engage in capital consumption, if you’ve missed it, that’s not my fault.
I’ve said what I mean, numerous times. Economics is the subject of using scarce means to acheive the ends valued by economic actors, as such it concerns utility and it is thus utilit…
forgive me for not having good enough comprehension skills to understand that you have already answered this question but
perhaps you would be so kind as to bluntly state whether economics is value free or value laden…
It’s value free in that it does not make any claims at the ends people hold.
but its also value laden because…
or is that just it, value free. simple as.?
Even if that were true, it doesn’t follow that consumers are better off. So you’ve still not shown that from the point of view of consumers a ‘private’ monopoly is preferable.
Also, the fact that Mr. Smith is the ‘owner’/beneficiary of a state granted privilege doesn’t mean he won’t engage in capital consumption.
However we can assume, for argument’s sake, that Mr. Smith does not engage in capital consumption. Still, it doesn’t follow that his customers will be better off. Mr Smith will run ‘his’ business in a way that maximizes his profits (loot), not in a way that maximizes customer satisfaction…
…Because, you know, the only thing that forces producers to provide better services is…competition.
Silly me, I thought capital consumption was a bad thing.
Of course not, but I’ve not said otherwise.
Perhaps a dictionary defintion would help, utilitarian:
that narrows it down…
u⋅til⋅i⋅ty
| 1. | the state or quality of being useful; usefulness: This chemical has no utility as an agricultural fertilizer. |
|---|
| 2. | something useful; a useful thing. |
|---|
| 3. | a public service, as a telephone or electric-light system, a streetcar or railroad line, or the like. Compare public utility (def. 1). |
|---|
| 4. | Often, utilities. a useful or advantageous factor or feature: the relative utilities of a religious or a secular education. |
|---|
| 5. | Economics. the capacity of a commodity or a service to satisfy some human want. |
|---|
| 6. | the principle and end of utilitarian ethics; well-being or happiness; that which is conducive to the happiness and well-being of the greatest number. |
|---|
| 7. | Computers. utility program. |
|---|
| 8. | utilities, stocks or bonds of public utilities. |
|---|
9. |
a grade of beef immediately below commercial. |
|---|
Still confused?