The problem of circularity is grounded on praexology! Mises made no such assumption about insolubility on the basis of mathematical grounds. That would be to misconstrue the entire problem under examination, which is exactly what you have done.
If you don’t stop thinking like a Keynesian, you will never understand not only the solution to your problem, but the nature of the problem itself. You have replaced human actors with a computer program. This tells me that the way you treat the problem is to completely ignore everything about the theory of the origin of money and everything about subjective value theory. In other words, typical mainstream garbage.
Sorry for the harsh criticism, but you deserve it after I literally spoon fed you with the solution.
there is no hard problem to solve, since all the variables are dynamic. it all flows from human action (not robot action) i.e. the ‘so-called’ solution always changes . the best we have is yesterdays market prices, and today we will discover todays. the entrepreneurs will do their things, profit and loss. off we go.
Let’s disregard the fact that the model you’re building bears no real relation to reality and will likely have highly misleading results.
This is not new. Pick up a graduate level textbook in microeconomics or model building. There are many to choose from. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
As for Mises not understanding circularity, I find it hard to believe that anyone could interpret Mises in this way. He clearly wasn’t trying to refute the fixed point theorem, which you demonstrated, in his writing.
I dispute that “values are ordinal”. In our heads they are cardinal, the ordinal part simply comes about because one cardinal number is bigger than another. And that’s very easy to put in a program:
In ‘C’ it would be: if (current_desire_for_apple > current_desire_for_banana) { choose_apple(); }
In a man’s head there will be a degree of desire X for apples and a degree of desire Y for bananas and if X>Y we choose apples. All that LvM siad was that it was too difficult to estimate the size of X and Y so that all that could be deduced from the observation of a man choosing an apple was that X>Y. I don’t beleive that LvM actually denied the existance of the cardinal values of X and Y, only that they were difficult to measure/model/calculate. I don’t think LvM himself would agree with the statement “values are ordinal”.
If LvM really thought (and I’m still not convinced) that value judgements were not cardinal (in our minds) then he was sorely mistaken. If, on an ordinary day, I offered you the choice between two small pieces of chocholate of two different brands, presumably you may prefer one piece to the other by a small margin. Whereas lets say you had just crossed the sahara desert and were dying of thirst and I offered you the choice between a piece of chocolate and a pint of cold water you would prefer the water to the chocolate by a large margin. No?
Lets imagine for a second that the man in question is you. Lets also imagine that after you made the choice in both scenarios you were asked to choose some words to describe the degree to which you preferred your choice to the alternative. What words do you think you may have come up with?
Looking over this thread is like watching a train wreck.
Mickanomics, it’s perfectly fine to get excited about your own economic ideas. But your poor understanding of value theory makes me think you’ve done a lot of theorizing without a lot of careful reading to inform your theorizing. It’s untoward and embarrassing to go about professing to have outdone Mises in multiple different topics, when it’s clear you’re not even familiar with the basics of his theories. For example you clearly hadn’t read the crucial passage Le Master and Liberty student quoted.
Please, do continue your passion for economics, but be more humble and studious about it.